Advertisement

Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 86–92 | Cite as

Comparative large-scale evaluation of human and active appearance model based tracking performance of anatomical landmarks in X-ray locomotion sequences

  • D. HaaseEmail author
  • J. A. Nyakatura
  • J. Denzler
Applied Problems
  • 102 Downloads

Abstract

The detailed understanding of animal locomotion is an important part of biology, motion science and robotics. To analyze the motion, high-speed x-ray sequences of walking animals are recorded. The biological evaluation is based on anatomical key points in the images, and the goal is to find these landmarks automatically. Unfortunately, low contrast and occlusions in the images drastically complicate this task. As recently shown, Active Appearance Models (AAMs) can be successfully applied to this problem. However, obtaining reliable quantitative results is a tedious task, as the human error is unknown. In this work, we present the results of a large scale study which allows us to quantify both the tracking performance of humans as well as AAMs. Furthermore, we show that the AAM-based approach provides results which are comparable to those of human experts.

Keywords

active appearance models X-ray videography landmark tracking locomotion analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. M. Gatesy, “Guineafowl hind limb function. I: Cineradiographic analysis and speed effects,” J. Morphol. 240(2), 1097–4687 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. M. Gatesy, D. B. Baier, F. A. Jenkins, and K. P. Dial, “Scientific rotoscoping: A morphology-based method of 3-d motion analysis and visualization,” Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological Genetics and Physiology A 313(5), 244–261 (2010).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. L. Brainerd, D. B. Baier, S. M. Gatesy, T. L. Hedrick, K. A. Metzger, S. L. Gilbert, and J. J. Crisco, “X-ray reconstruction of moving morphology (XROMM): Precision, accuracy and applications in comparative biomechanics research,” J. Exp. Zool. A 313A(5), 262–279 (2010).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Fischer and K. Lilje, Dogs in Motion, VDH, 2011.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. K. P. Horn and B. G. Schunck, “Determining optical flow,” Artif. Intell. 17(1–3), 185–203 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Baker and I. Matthews, “Lucas-kanade 20 years on: A unifying framework,” Int. J. Comput. Vision 56(3), 221–255, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. D. Hager and P. N. Belhumeur, “Efficient region tracking with parametric models of geometry and illumination,” IEEE T. Pattern Anal. 20(10), 1025–1039 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,” Int. J. Comput. Vision 60(2), 91–110 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Haase and J. Denzler, “Anatomical landmark tracking for the analysis of animal locomotion in X-ray videos using active appearance models,” in Proceedings of the 17th Scandinavian Conference on Image Analysis (SCIA 2011), ser. LNCS, Eds. by A. Heyden and F. Kahl (Springer, 2011), No. 6688, pp. 604–615.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. F. Cootes, G. J. Edwards, and C. J. Taylor, “Active appearance models,” in Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Computer Vision, ser. LNCS, Eds. by H. Burkhardt and B. Neumann (Springer, 1998), Vol. 1407, pp. 484–498.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. J. Edwards, T. F. Cootes, and C. J. Taylor, “Face recognition using active appearance models,” in Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Computer Vision, ser. LNCS, Eds. by H. Burkhardt and B. Neumann (Springer, 1998), Vol. 1407, pp. 581–595.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. F. Cootes, G. J. Edwards, and C. J. Taylor, “Active appearance models,” IEEE T. Pattern Anal. 23(6), 681–685 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Haase, J. A. Nyakatura, and J. Denzler, “Multi-view active appearance models for the X-ray based analysis of avian bipedal locomotion,” in Proceedings of the 33rd DAGM Symposium (DAGM 2011), ser. LNCS, Eds. by R. Mester and M. Felsberg (Springer, 2011), No. 6835, pp. 11–20.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. L. Bookstein, “Landmark methods for forms without landmarks: Morphometrics of group differences in outline shape,” Med. Image Anal. 1(3), 225–243 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    I. Matthews and S. Baker, “Active appearance models revisited,” International Journal of Computer Vision 60(2), 135–164 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Lelieveldt, M. üzümcü, R. van der Geest, J. Reiber, and M. Sonka, “Multi-view active appearance models for consistent segmentation of multiple standard views,” International Congress Series 1256, 1141–1146 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Oost, G. Koning, M. Sonka, P. V. Oemrawsingh, J. H. C. Reiber, and B. P. F. Lelieveldt, “Automated contour detection in X-ray left ventricular angiograms using multiview active appearance models and dynamic programming,” IEEE T. Med. Imaging 25(9), 1158–1171 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. B. Stegmann, “Active appearance models: theory, extensions and cases,” in Master’s Thesis (Technical University of Denmark, DTU, 2000).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Haase and J. Denzler, “Comparative evaluation of human and active appearance model based tracking performance of anatomical landmarks in locomotion analysis,” in Proceedings of the 8th Open German-Russian Workshop Pattern Recognition and Image Understanding (OGRW-8-2011), 2011, pp. 96–99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Vision Friedrich Schiller University of JenaJenaGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Systematic Zoology and Evolutionary Biology with Phyletic MuseumFriedrich Schiller University of JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations