Pattern Analysis and Applications

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Blur robust extremal region-based interest points for medical image registration

Theoretical Advances
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

Various studies on interest point (IP) detection have concluded that maximally stable extremal region (MSER)-based IPs outperform others on repeatability, localization accuracy, robustness, efficiency and covariance to global and local image distortions. Since medical images lack sharp detail, corner IPs are not a suitable choice for them. Instead, MSERs which offer region-based IPs are useful. However, sensitivity of MSERs to image blur and scale makes them less useful practically. In this context, through this paper, following contributions are made—(1) It is proposed to study MSER-based IPs in Intensity Scale Space instead of conventional Scale Space to better understand and mitigate the problem of IP clutter. (2) By modulating the connectivity of previously proposed ER-based IPs (inspired from visual saliency approach), blur and scale sensitivity of region-based IPs is shown to reduce significantly. The newly developed IPs are called ‘blur robust extremal region (BRER)’ IPs. (3) Owing to the global nature of evaluation parameters (like repeatability) for IP detection, the problem of incorrect judgment is highlighted. As a solution to it, three new evaluation parameters called ‘Uniformity Index,’ ‘10 % core distance’ and ‘Informativeness’ are proposed. These indices capture the idea of uniform distribution of IPs over the entire image, IP clutter and the redundancy of registered IP pairs, respectively. Experiments on database of medical images of different modalities and various organs/diseases suggest that proposed BRER IPs are robust to blur and scale. Also, proposed indices of evaluation offer better judgment of quality of image registration.

Keywords

Image registration Interest points Landmark points MSER Repeatability Scale space SURF 

References

  1. 1.
    Sotiras A, Davatzikos C, Paragios N (2013) Deformable medical image registration: a survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 32:1153–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tuytelaars T, Mikolajczyk K (2008) Local invariant feature detectors: a survey. Found Trends Comput Graph Vis 3(3):177–280. doi: 10.1561/0600000017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mikolajczyk K, Tuytelaars T, Schmid C, Zisserman A, Matas J, Schaffalitzky F et al (2005) A comparison of affine region detectors. Int J Comput Vis 65:43–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matas J, Chum O, Urban M, Pajdla T (2004) Robust wide-baseline stereo from maximally stable extremal regions. Image Vis Comput 22:761–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tuytelaars T, Van Gool LJ (2000) Wide baseline stereo matching based on local, affinely invariant regions. In: BMVC, vol 1. p 4Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mikolajczyk K, Schmid C (2004) Scale and affine invariant interest point detectors. Int J Comput Vis 60:63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tuytelaars T, Van Gool L (1999) Content-based image retrieval based on local affinely invariant regions. In: Visual information and information systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 493–500Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mori G, Ren X, Efros AA, Malik J (2004) Recovering human body configurations: combining segmentation and recognition. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2004. CVPR 2004, vol 2, pp II-326–II-333Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ren X, Malik J (2003) Learning a classification model for segmentation. In: Proceedings ninth IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2003, pp 10–17Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bay H, Ess A, Tuytelaars T, Van Gool L (2008) Speeded-up robust features (SURF). Comput Vis Image Underst 110:346–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60:91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qin D (2010) A comparison study of the local feature detectors. ThesisGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maver J (2010) Self-similarity and points of interest. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32:1211–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalia R, Lee K-D, Samir B, Je S-K, Oh W-G (2011) An analysis of the effect of different image preprocessing techniques on the performance of surf: speeded up robust features. In: 2011 17th Korea-Japan joint workshop on frontiers of computer vision (fcv), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dahl AL, Aanæs H, Pedersen KS (2011) Finding the best feature detector-descriptor combination. In: 2011 International conference on 3D Imaging, modeling, processing, visualization and transmission (3DIMPVT), pp 318–325Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chao J, Al-Nuaimi A, Schroth G, Steinbach E (2013) Performance comparison of various feature detector-descriptor combinations for content-based image retrieval with JPEG-encoded query images. In: 2013 IEEE 15th international workshop on multimedia signal processing (MMSP), pp 029–034Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Işık Ş (2015) A comparative evaluation of well-known feature detectors and descriptors. Int J Appl Math Electron Comput 3:1–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kazmi W, Andersen HJ (2015) A comparison of interest point and region detectors on structured, range and texture images. J Vis Commun Image Represent 32:156–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Forssén P-E, Lowe DG (2007) Shape descriptors for maximally stable extremal regions. In: IEEE 11th international conference on computer vision, 2007. ICCV 2007, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheng L, Gong J, Yang X, Fan C, Han P (2008) Robust affine invariant feature extraction for image matching. IEEE Geosci Remote Sens Lett 5:246–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miao J, Chu J, Zhang G (2015) Detection of saliency maximally stable color regions. Multimed Tools Appl 74:5845–5860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faraji M, Shanbehzadeh J, Nasrollahi K, Moeslund TB (2015) Extremal regions detection guided by maxima of gradient magnitude. IEEE Trans Image Process 24:5401–5415MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faraji M, Shanbehzadeh J, Nasrollahi K, Moeslund TB (2015) EREL: extremal regions of extremum levels. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), pp 681–685Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sedgewick R (2003) Algorithms in C++, vol 2. Pearson Education India, DelhiMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nistér D, Stewénius H (2008) Linear time maximally stable extremal regions. In: Computer vision—ECCV 2008. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 183–196Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kashyap M, Bhattacharya M (2015) Medical image registration using extremal region based interest points. In: International conference on computer graphics, vision and information security (IEEE CGVIS—2015), BhubaneswarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Filipe S, Alexandre LA (2013) From the human visual system to the computational models of visual attention: a survey. Artif Intell Rev 39:1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yates F (1934) Contingency tables involving small numbers and the χ2 test. Suppl J R Stat Soc 1(2):217–235CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roy S, Bhattacharyya DK (2005) An approach to find embedded clusters using density based techniques. In: Distributed computing and internet technology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 523–535Google Scholar
  30. 30.
  31. 31.
    Rosset A, Spadola L, Ratib O (2004) OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional DICOM images. J Digit Imaging 17:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical Informatics LaboratoryIndian Institute of Information Technology and ManagementGwaliorIndia

Personalised recommendations