Applied Intelligence

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 7–19 | Cite as

Evolution-Based Methods for Selecting Point Data for Object Localization: Applications to Computer-Assisted Surgery

  • Shumeet Baluja
  • David Simon

Abstract

Object localization has applications in many areas of engineering and science. The goal is to spatially locate an arbitrarily shaped object. In many applications, it is desirable to minimize the number of measurements collected while ensuring sufficient localization accuracy. In surgery, for example, collecting a large number of localization measurements may either extend the time required to perform a surgical procedure or increase the radiation dosage to which a patient is exposed.

Localization accuracy is a function of the spatial distribution of discrete measurements over an object when measurement noise is present. In previous work (J. of Image Guided Surgery, Simon et al., 1995), metrics were presented to evaluate the information available from a set of discrete object measurements. In this study, new approaches to the discrete point data selection problem are described. These include hillclimbing, genetic algorithms (GAs), and Population-Based Incremental Learning (PBIL). Extensions of the standard GA and PBIL methods that employ multiple parallel populations are explored. The results of extensive empirical testing are provided. The results suggest that a combination of PBIL and hillclimbing result in the best overall performance. A computer-assisted surgical system that incorporates some of the methods presented in this paper is currently being evaluated in cadaver trials.

object localization registration genetic algorithms population-based incremental learning computer-assisted surgery 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Baluja, “An empirical comparison of seven iterative and evolutionary function optimization heuristics,” Technical Report CMU-CS-95-193, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Baluja, “Genetic algorithms and explicit search statistics,” to appear in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 9, edited by M.C. Mozer, M.I. Jordan, and T. Petsche, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Baluja and R. Caruana, “Removing the genetics from the standard genetic algorithm,” in Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Machine Learning (ML-95), edited by A. Prieditis and S. Russell, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1995, pp. 38- 46.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.J. Besl and N.D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-d shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no.2, 1992, pp. 239- 256.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Cohoon, S. Hedge, W. Martin, and D. Richards, “Distributed genetic algorithms for the floor plan design problem,” Technical Report TR-88-12, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 1988.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Davidor, “A naturally occurring niche and species phenomenon,” in Proc. of the Fourth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1991, pp. 257- 263.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. DeJong, “An analysis of the behavior of a class of genetic adaptive systems,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Fang, P. Ross, and D. Corne, “A promising approach to job-shop scheduling, re-scheduling and open-shop scheduling problems,” in Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, edited by S. Forrest, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1993, pp. 375- 382.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Furuya and R. Haftka, “Genetic algorithms for placing actuators on space structures,” in Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1993, pp. 536- 543.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Goodhill, S. Finch, and T. Sejnowski, “Quantifying neighborhood preservation in topographic mappings,” Technical Report INC-9505, Institute for Neural Computation, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Gordon and D. Whitley, “Serial and parallel genetic algorithms as function optimizers,” in Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, edited by S. Forrest, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1993, pp. 177- 184.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Hertz, A. Krogh, and R. Palmer, Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Homaifer, S. Guan, and G. Liepins, “A new approach on the tsp by genetic algorithms,” in Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, edited by S. Forrest, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1993, pp.460- 466.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.K.P. Horn, “Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, vol. 4, no.4, pp. 629- 642, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Jones and S. Forrest, “Fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty for genetic algorithms,” in Proc. of the Sixth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, edited by S. Forrest, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Juels and M. Wattenberg, “Stochastic hillclimbing as a baseline method for evaluating genetic algorithms,” Technical Report CSD-94-834, University of California, Berkeley, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Kim and P.K. Khosla, “Dexterity measures for design and control of manipulators,” in Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IEEE/RSJ, Osaka, Japan, 1991, pp. 758- 763.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Lavallee and R. Szeliski, “Recovering the position and orientation of free-form objects from image contours using 3d distance maps,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 17, no.4, pp. 378- 390, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Levine, “Agenetic algorithm for the set partitioning problem,” in Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, edited by S. Forrest, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1993, pp. 481- 487.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Navhi, “Identification and control of the redundant linear drives of two anthropomorphic robots,” Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D.A. Simon, “Fast and accurate shape-based registration,” Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D.A. Simon, M. Hebert, and T. Kanade, “Techniques for fast and accurate intra-surgical registration,” Journal of Image Guided Surgery, vol. 1, no.1, pp. 17- 29, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D.A. Simon, R.V. O'Toole, M.K. Blackwell, F. Morgan, A.M. DiGioia, and T. Kanade, “Accuracy validation in image-guided orthopaedic surgery,” in Proc. of the Second Int. Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, Baltimore, 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R.H. Taylor, S. Lavallee, G.G. Burdea, and R. Mosges, (eds.), Computer-Integrated Surgery, The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Whitley and T. Starkweather, “Genitor II: A distributed genetic algorithm,” Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Arti-ficial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 189- 214, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shumeet Baluja
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Simon
    • 3
  1. 1.Justsystem Pittsburgh Research CenterPittsburgh
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations