2-D Shape Decomposition into Overlapping Parts

  • Amin Massad
  • Gerard Medioni
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2059)


We propose a method to generate component-based shape descriptions by the application of a perceptual grouping approach known as tensor voting. Based on previously described results on the generation of region, curve and junction saliencies and motivated by psychological findings about shape perception, we introduce extensions by a voting between junctions to create amodal completions, by a labeling of the junctions according to a catalog of junction types, and by a traversal algorithm to collect the local information into globally consistent part decompositions. In contrast to commonly used partitioning schemes, our method is able to create layered representations of overlapping parts. We consider this a major advantage together with the use of local operations and low computational costs whereas other approaches are based on highly iterative processes.


Input Image Polarity Vector Shape Description Perceptual Grouping Illusory Contour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Bie87]
    I. Biederman. Recognition by components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychol. Rev., 94:115–147, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Blu67]
    H. Blum. A transformation for extracting new descriptors of shape. In W. Wathen-Dunn, editor, Models for the Perception of Speech and Visual Form, pages 362–380, Cambride, MA, 1967. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. [BN78]
    H. Blum and R. Nagel. Shape description using weighted symmetric axis features. Pattern Recognition, 10(3):167–180, 1978.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [CKS97]
    V. Caselles, R. Kimmel, and G. Sapiro. Geodesic active contours. Int. J. of Computer Vision, 22:61–79, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [GM96]
    G. Guy and G. Medioni. Inferring global perceptual contours from local features. Int. J. Computer Vision, 20:113–133, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [HR84]
    D. Hoffman and W. Richards. Parts of recognition. Cogn., 18:65–96, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Kof35]
    K. Koffka. Principles of Gestalt psychology. Harcourt Brace, New York, 1935.Google Scholar
  8. [KS91]
    P. Kellman and T. Shipley. A theory of visual interpolation in object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23:141–221, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [KTZ95]
    B. Kimia, R. Tannenbaum, and S. Zucker. Shapes, shocks, and deformations I: The components of shape and the reaction-difusion space. Int. J. Computer Vision, 15:189–224, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Ley88]
    M. Leyton. A process-grammar for shape. A.I., 34:213–247, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Ley89]
    M. Leyton. Inferring causal history from shape. Cog. Sci., 13:357–387, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [LL99]
    L. Latecki and R. Lakmper. Conexity rule for shape decomposition based on discrete contour evolution. CVIU, 73:441–454, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. [MLT00]
    G. Medioni, M.-S. Lee, and C.-K. Tang. A computational framework for segmentation and grouping. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [MN78]
    D. Marr and H.K. Nishihara. Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. In Proc. R. Soc. Lond., volume 200, pages 269–294, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Pen87]
    A. Pentland. Recognition by parts. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, pages 612–620, London, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [Pet56]
    G. Petter. Nuove ricerche sperimentali sulla totalizzazione percettiva [New experimental research on perceptual totalization]. Rivista di Psicologia, 50:213–227, 1956.Google Scholar
  17. [RN88]
    K. Rao and R. Nevatia. Computing volume descriptions from sparse 3-d data. Int. J. of Computer Vision, 2:33–50, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Rom93]
    H. Rom. Part decomposition and shape description. Technical Report IRIS-93-319, Univ. of Southern California, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. [Sau99]
    E. Saund. Perceptual organization of occluding contours of opaque surfaces. CVIU, 76:70–82, 1999.Google Scholar
  20. [SB93]
    S. Sarkar and K. Boyer. Integration, inference, and managment of spatial information using bayesian networks: Perceptual organization. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. and Machine Intel., 15:256–274, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [SR94]
    R. Shapley and D. Ringach. Similar mechanisms for illusory contours and amodal completion. Invest. Ophtalm. ℰ Visual Sci., 35:1089, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. [SU98]
    A. Sha‘ashua and S. Ullman. Structural saliency: the detection of globally salient structures using a locally connected network. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Vision, pages 312–327, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. [TSK97]
    H. Tek, P. Stoll, and B. Kimia. Shocks from images: Propagation of orientation elements. In CVPR, pages 839–845, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. [TW96]
    K. Thornber and L. Williams. Analytic solution of stochastic completion fields. Biol. Cybern., 75:141–151, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [UKD+99]
    W. Uttal, R. Kakarala, S. Dayanand, T. Shepherd, J. Kalki, C. Lunskis, and N. Liu. Computational Modeling of Vision. Dekker, New York, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amin Massad
    • 1
  • Gerard Medioni
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of CS/IMAUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Dept. of CS/IRISUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations