The COMPARES Project: Connectionist methods for preprocessing and analysis of remote sensing data

  • J. Austin
  • G. Giacinto
  • I. Kanellopoulos
  • K. Lees
  • F. Roll
  • G. Vernazza
  • G. Wilkinson
Special Session on European Projects
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1311)

Abstract

The European Concerted Action “COMPARES” (Concerted Action on COnnectionist Methods for Preprocessing and Analysis of REmote Sensing Data) was funded within the Environment and Climate Programme of the European Commission. The “COMPARES” project was aimed at focussing and coordinating future research at European level on the general theme of connectionist computation in the field of Earth Observation (EO). Connectionist computation can be interpreted as the use of artificial neural networks and parallel distributed processing systems.

Keywords

Remote Sensing Concert Action REmote Sensing Data Connectionist System Signal Inversion 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Kohonen, T. 1984. Self Organization and Associative Memory. Springer Series in Information Sciences, Vol. 8. Springer-Verlag. (Also 2nd. edition, 1988).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossberg, S. 1976. Adaptive pattern recognition and universal recoding: Part 1. Parallel development and coding of neural feature detectors, Biological Cybernetics, 23, 121–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. and the PDP Research Group. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing, Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 1: Foundations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pao, Y.-H. 1989. Adaptive Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dayhoff, J. 1990. Neural Network Architectures. (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), 259pp.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Key, J., Maslanic, A. and Schweiger, A. J. 1989. Classification of merged AVHRR and SMMR Arctic data with neural networks, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 55, 9, 1331–1338.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benediktsson, J. A., Swain, P. H., and Ersoy, O. K. 1990. Neural network approaches versus statistical methods in classification of multisource remote sensing data, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 28, 4, 540–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilkinson, G. G. 1997. Neurocomputing for Earth observation-recent developments and future challenges, chapter 16 in ‘Recent Developments in Spatial Analysis-Spatial Statistics, Behavioural Modelling and Neurocomputing', M. M. Fischer and A. Getis (editors), Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilkinson, G. G., Fierens, F. and Kanellopoulos, I. 1995. Integration of neural and statistical approaches in spatial data classification, Geographical Systems, 2, 1–20.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pierce, L.E., Sarabandi, K., and Ulaby, F.T. 1994. Application of an artificial neural network in canopy scattering inversion, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 15, 16, 3263–3270.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, K.S., Kao, W.L., and Tzeng, Y.C. 1995. Retrieval of surface parameters using dynamic learning neural network, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16, 5, 801–809.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seginer, I., Boulard, T., and Bailey, B.J. 1994. Neural network models of the greenhouse climate, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 59, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Serpico, S.B. and Roli, F. 1995. Classification of multisensor remote-sensing images by structured neural networks, IEEE Trans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 33, 3, 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    F.Roli, S.B.Serpico, and G.Vernazza, Neural Networks for classification of remotely sensed images, Part 2, Chapter 15, Fuzzy Logic and Neural Network Handbook, McGraw-Hill Pub., C.H.Chen Editor, 1996Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foody, G. M., McCulloch, M. B., and Yates, W. B. 1995. The effect of training set size and composition on artificial neural network classification, International Journal of Remote Sensing, 16, 9, 1707–1723.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hepner, G. F., Logan, T., Ritter, N., and Bryant, N. 1990. Artificial neural network classification using a minimal training set: comparison to conventional supervised classification, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 56, 4, 469–473.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Austin
    • 1
  • G. Giacinto
    • 2
  • I. Kanellopoulos
    • 3
  • K. Lees
    • 1
  • F. Roll
    • 2
  • G. Vernazza
    • 2
  • G. Wilkinson
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.University of YorkUK
  2. 2.University of CagliariSardiniaItaly
  3. 3.EC Joint Research CentreIspraItaly
  4. 4.Kingston UniversityUK
  5. 5.Formerly at EC Joint Research CentreIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations