International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 153–167 | Cite as

Deformotion: Deforming Motion, Shape Average and the Joint Registration and Approximation of Structures in Images

  • Anthony J. Yezzi
  • Stefano Soatto


What does it mean for a deforming object to be “moving”? How can we separate the overall motion (a finite-dimensional group action) from the more general deformation (a diffeomorphism)? In this paper we propose a definition of motion for a deforming object and introduce a notion of “shape average” as the entity that separates the motion from the deformation. Our definition allows us to derive novel and efficient algorithms to register non-identical shapes using region-based methods, and to simultaneously approximate and align structures in greyscale images. We also extend the notion of shape average to that of a “moving average” in order to track moving and deforming objects through time. The algorithms we propose extend prior work on landmark-based matching to smooth curves, and involve the numerical integration of partial differential equations, which we address within the framework of level set methods.

shape segmentation motion registration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alvarez, L., Guichard, F., Lions, P.L., and Morel, J.M. 1993. Axioms and fundamental equations of image processing. Arch. Rational Mechanics, 123.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, L. and Morel, J.M. 1994. Morphological approach to multiscale analysis: From principles to equations. In Geometric-Driven Diffusion in Computer Vision, B.M. ter Haar Romeny (Ed.).Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, L., Weickert, J., and Sanchez, J. 1999. A scale-space approach to nonlocal optical flow calculations. In ScaleSpace'99, pp. 235–246.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, V.I. 1978. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Azencott, R., Coldefy, F., and Younes, L. 1996. A distance for elastic matching in object recognition. Proc. 13th Intl. Conf. on Patt. Recog, 1:687–691.Google Scholar
  6. Belongie, S., Malik, J., and Puzicha, J. 2001. Matching shapes. In Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision.Google Scholar
  7. Bereziat, D., Herlin, I., and Younes, L. 1997. Motion detection in meteorological images sequences: Two methods and their comparison. In Proc. of the SPIE.Google Scholar
  8. Blake, A. and Isard, M. 1998. Active Contours. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Carne, T.K. 1990. The geometry of shape spaces. Proc. of the London Math. Soc., 3(61):407–432.Google Scholar
  10. Chui, H. and Rangarajan, A. 2000. A new algorithm for non-rigid point matching. In Proc. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. on Comp. Vis. and Patt. Recog., pp. 44–51.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, R., Cootes, T., and Taylor, C. 2001. A minimum description length approach to statistical shape modelling. In 17th Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging, pp. 50– 63.Google Scholar
  12. Dutta, N. and Jain, A. 2001. Corpus callosum shape analysis: A comparative study of group differences associated with dyslexia, gender and handedness. In MMBIA submitted.Google Scholar
  13. Fischler, M. and Elschlager, R. 1973. The representation and matching of pictorial structures. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 22(1):67–92.Google Scholar
  14. Giblin, P. 1977. Graphs, Surfaces and Homology. Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Grenander, U. 1993. General Pattern Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Grenander, U. and Miller, M.I. 1994. Representation of knowledge in complex systems. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B, 56:549– 603.Google Scholar
  17. Jackway, P.T. and Deriche, R. 1996. Scale-space properties of the multiscale morphological dilationerosion. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 18(1):38–51.Google Scholar
  18. Kendall, D.G. 1984. Shape manifolds, procrustean metrics and complex projective spaces. Bull. London Math. Soc., 16.Google Scholar
  19. Kimia, B., Tannebaum, A., and Zucker, S. 1995. Shapes, shocks, and deformations i: The components of two-dimensional shape and the reaction-diffusion space. Int'l J. Computer Vision, 15:189–224.Google Scholar
  20. Kimmel, R. 1997. Intrinsic scale space for images on surfaces: The geodesic curvature flow. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science: First International Conference on Scale-Space Theory in Computer Vision.Google Scholar
  21. Kimmel, R. and Bruckstein, A. 1995. Tracking level sets by level sets: A method for solving the shape from shading problem. Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Understanding, (62)1:47–58.Google Scholar
  22. Kimmel, R., Kiryati, N., and Bruckstein, A.M. 1998. Multivalued distance maps for motion planning on surfaces withmoving obstacles. IEEE Trans. Robot. & Autom., 14(3):427–435.Google Scholar
  23. Koenderink, J.J. 1990. Solid Shape. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lades, M., Borbruggen, C., Buhmann, J., Lange, J., von der Malsburg, C., Wurtz, R., and Konen, W. 1993. Distortion invariant object rcognition in the dynamic link architecture. IEEE Trans. on Computers, 42(3):300–311.Google Scholar
  25. Le, H. and Kendall, D.G. 1993. The riemannian structure of euclidean shape spaces: A novel environment for statistics. The Annals of Statistics, 21(3):1225–1271.Google Scholar
  26. Leventon, M., Grimson, E., and Faugeras, O. 2000. Statistical shape influence in geodesic active contours. In Proc. IEEE Conference Comp. Vision and Patt. Recognition.Google Scholar
  27. Ljung, L. 1987. System Identification: Theory for the User. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Malladi, R., Kimmel, R., Adalsteinsson, D., Caselles, V., Sapiro, G., and Sethian, J.A. 1996. Ageometric approach to segmentation and analysis of 3d medical images. In Proc. Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis Workshop, pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  29. Malladi, R., Sethian, J.A., and Vemuri, B.C. 1995. Shape modeling with front propagation: A level set approach. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 17(2):158– 175.Google Scholar
  30. Mardia, K.V. and Dryden, I.L. 1989. Shape distributions for landmark data. Adv. Appl. Prob., 21(4):742–755.Google Scholar
  31. Matheron, G. 1975. Random Sets and Integral Geometry. Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, M.I. and Younes, L. 1999. Group action, diffeomorphism and matching: A general framework. In Proc. of SCTV.Google Scholar
  33. Mumford, D. 1991. Mathematical theories of shape: Do they model perception? In Geometric Methods in Computer Vision, vol. 1570, pp. 2–10.Google Scholar
  34. Osher, S. and Sethian, J. 1988. Fronts propagating with curvaturedependent speed: Algorithms based on Hamilton-Jacobi equations. J. of Comp. Physics, 79:12–49.Google Scholar
  35. Paragios, N. and Deriche, R. 2000. Geodesic active contours and level sets for the detection and tracking of moving objects. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(3):266– 280.Google Scholar
  36. Samson, C., Blanc-Feraud, L., Aubert, G., and Zerubia, J. 1999. A level set model for image classification. In International Conference on Scale-Space Theories in Computer Vision, pp. 306–317.Google Scholar
  37. Sebastian, T.B., Crisco, J.J., Klein, P.N., and Kimia, B.B. 2000. Constructing 2D curve atlases. In Proceedings of Mathematical Methods in Biomedical Image Analysis, pp. 70–77.Google Scholar
  38. ter Haar Romeny, B., Florack, L., Koenderink, J., and Viergever, M. (Eds.). 1997. Scale-space theory in computer vision. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1252, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  39. Thom, R. 1975. Structural Stability and Morphogenesis. Benjamin: Reading.Google Scholar
  40. Thompson, D.W. 1917. On Growth and Form. Dover.Google Scholar
  41. Thompson, P. and Toga, A.W. 1996. A surface-based technique for warping three-dimensional images of the brain. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 15(4):402–417.Google Scholar
  42. Veltkamp, R.C. and Hagedoorn, M. 1999. State of the art in shape matching. Technical Report UU-CS-1999-27, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  43. Yezzi, A. and Soatto, S. 2001. Stereoscopic segmentation. In Proc. of the Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
  44. Yezzi, A., Zollei, L. and Kapur, T. 2001. A variational approach to joint segmentation and registration. In Proc. IEEE Conf. on Comp. Vision and Pattern Recogn.Google Scholar
  45. Younes, L. 1998. Computable elastic distances between shapes. SIAM J. of Appl. Math., 58(2):565–586.Google Scholar
  46. Yuille, A. 1991. Deformable templates for face recognition. J. of Cognitive Neurosci., 3(1):59–70.Google Scholar
  47. Zhu, S., Lee, T., and Yuille, A. 1995. Region competition: Unifying snakes, region growing, energy/bayes/mdl for multi-band image segmentation. In Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, pp. 416– 423.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony J. Yezzi
    • 1
  • Stefano Soatto
    • 2
  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations