Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 525–533 | Cite as

Optimisation of shape kernel and threshold in image-processing motion analysers

  • A. Pedrocchi
  • G. Baroni
  • S. Sada
  • E. Marcon
  • A. Pedotti
  • G. Ferrigno
Article

Abstract

The aim of the work is to optimise the image processing of a motion analyser. This is to improve accuracy, which is crucial for neurophysiological and rehabilitation applications. A new motion analyser, ELITE-S2, for installation on the International Space Station is described, with the focus on image processing. Important improvements are expected in the hardware of ELITE-S2 compared with ELITE and previous versions (ELITE-S and Kinelite). The core algorithm for marker recognition was based on the current ELITE version, using the cross-correlation technique. This technique was based on the matching of the expected marker shape, the so-called kernel, with image features. Optimisation of the kernel parameters was achieved using a genetic algorithm, taking into account noise rejection and accuracy. Optimisation was achieved by performing tests on six highly precise grids (with marker diameters ranging from 1.5 to 4 mm), representing all allowed marker image sizes, and on a noise image. The results of comparing the optimised kernels and the current ELITE version showed a great improvement in marker recognition accuracy, while noise rejection characteristics were preserved. An average increase in marker co-ordinate accuracy of +22% was achieved, corresponding to a mean accuracy of 0.11 pixel in comparison with 0.14 pixel, measured over all grids. An improvement of +37%, corresponding to an improvement from 0.22 pixel to 0.14 pixel, was observed over the grid with the biggest markers.

Keywords

Motion analysis Genetic algorithms Correlation International Space Station Rehabilitation instrumentation Constrained optimisation over finite domain 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baroni, G., Ferrigno, G., Anolli, A., Andreoni, G., andPedotti, A. (1998): ‘Quantitative analysis of motion control in long term μ gravity’,Acta Astronautica,43, pp. 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beasley, D., Bull, D. R., andMartin, R. R. (1993): ‘An overview of genetic algorithms’,Univ. Comput. Google Scholar
  3. Beasley, J., andChu, P. (1996): ‘A genetic algorithm for the set covering problem’,Eur. J. Oper. Res.,94, 2, pp. 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ferrigno, G., andPedotti, A. (1985): ‘ELITE: a digital dedicated hardware system for movement analysis via real time TV signal processing’,IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.,32, pp. 943–950Google Scholar
  5. Ferrigno, G., Borghese, N. A., andPedotti, A. (1990): ‘Pattern recognition in 3D automatic human motion analysis’,ISPRS J. Photogrammetry Remote Sensing,45, pp. 227–246Google Scholar
  6. Ferrigno, G., Baroni, G., andPedotti, A. (1999): ‘Methodological and technological implication of quantitative human movement analysis in long-term space flights’,J. Biomech.,32, pp. 431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Homaifar, A., Lai, S. H., andQi, H. (1994): ‘Constrained optimisation by genetic algorithms’,Simulations,62, pp. 242–254Google Scholar
  8. Joines, J. A., Culbreth, C. T. andKing, R. E. (1993): ‘Manufacturing cell design: an integer programming model employing genetic algorithms’. Technical report NCSU-IE Technical Report 93-16, North Carolina State University, (revised 1996)Google Scholar
  9. Joines, J. A., andHouck, C. (1994): ‘On the use of non-stationary penalty functions to solve non-linear constrained optimization problems with gas’. Proc. 1st IEEE Conf. Evol. Comput., New York, pp. 579–584Google Scholar
  10. Michalewicz, Z., andNazhiyath, G. (1995): ‘Genocop III. A coevolutionary algorithm for numerical optimisation problems with non-linear constraints’. Proc. 2nd IEEE Conf. Evol. Comput., New York, pp. 647–651Google Scholar
  11. Michalewicz, Z. (1996): ‘Genetic algorithms + Data structures = Evolution programs’, (Springer, Berlin, Germany), 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  12. Minton, D., Johnston, M. D., Philips, A. B., andLaird, P. (1992): ‘Minimising conflicts: a heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems’,Artif. Intell.,58, pp. 161–205CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Pedrocchi, A., Baroni, G., Ferrigno, G., andPedotti, A. (1998): ‘ELITE-S2: potential application and technological requirements for multifactorial movement analysis in microgravity’. Second Eur. Symp. Utilization of the International Space Station, Estec, pp. 549–553Google Scholar
  14. Riuz-Andino, A., Araujo, L., Saenz, F., andRuz, J. (2000): ‘A hybrid evolutionary approach for solving constrained optimisation problems over finite domains’,IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.,4, pp. 353–372Google Scholar
  15. Schnecke, V., andVornberger, O. (1997): ‘Hybrid genetic algorithms for constrained placement problems’,IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput.,1, pp. 266–277Google Scholar
  16. Venet, M., Picard, H., McIntyre, J., Berthoz, A., andLacquaniti, F. (1998): ‘The Kinelite project: a new powerful motion analyser for SpaceLab and Space Station’,Acta Astronautica,43, pp. 277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFMBE 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Pedrocchi
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. Baroni
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Sada
    • 2
  • E. Marcon
    • 1
  • A. Pedotti
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. Ferrigno
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Bioengineering DepartmentPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Centro di BioingegneriaFnd Don C. Gnocchi ONLUS Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations