2D Shape Decomposition Based on Combined Skeleton-Boundary Features

  • JingTing Zeng
  • Rolf Lakaemper
  • XingWei Yang
  • Xin Li
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5359)


Decomposing a shape into meaningful components plays a strong role in shape-related applications. In this paper, we combine properties of skeleton and boundary to implement a general shape decomposition approach. It is motivated by recent studies in visual human perception discussing the importance of certain shape boundary features as well as features of the shape area; it utilizes certain properties of the shape skeleton combined with boundary features to determine protrusion strength. Experiments yield results similar to those from human subjects on abstract shape data. Also, experiments of different data sets prove the robustness of the combined skeleton-boundary approach.


Tangent Point Junction Point Decomposition Result Part Line Contour Segment 
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. 1.
    Hoffman, D.D., Richards, W.: Parts of recognition. cognition 18, 65–96 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Latecki, L., Lakaemper, R.: Convexity rule for shape decomposition based on discrete contour evolution. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 73, 441–454 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh, M., Hoffman, D.D.: Part-based representations of visual shape and implications for visual cognition. In: Shipley, T., Kellman, P. (eds.) From fragments to objects: Segmentation and Grouping in Vision, vol. 130, pp. 401–459 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Puff, D.T., Ebefiy, Z.D., Pizerzx, S.M.: Object-based interpolation via cores. In: Proceedings of SPIE, pp. 143–150 (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abe, K., Arcelli, C., Hisajima, T., Ibaraki, T.: Parts of planar shapes. Pattern Recognition 29, 1703–1711 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hilaga, M., Shinagawa, Y., Kohmura, T., Kunii: Topology matching for fully automatic similarity estimation of 3d shapes. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 203–212 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shokoufandeh, A., Bretzner, L., Macrini, D., Demirci, M.F., Jonsson, C., Dickinson, S.: The representation and matching of categorical shape. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 103, 139–154 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, E.H., Singh, M.: Geometric determinants of shape segmentation: Tests using segment identification. Vision Research 47, 2825–2840 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siddiqi, K., Kimia, B.B.: Parts of visual form: Computational aspects. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 17, 239–251 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bai, X., Latecki, L.J., Liu, W.: Skeleton pruning by contour partitioning with discrete curve evolution. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 29, 449–462 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bai, X., Latecki, L.J.: Discrete skeleton evolution. In: The 6th International Conference on Energy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 4679, pp. 362–374 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mi, X., DeCarlo, D.: Separating parts from 2d shapes using relatability. In: IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reniers, D., Telea, A.: Skeleton-based hierarchical shape segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Shape Modeling and Applications, pp. 179–188 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanase, M., Veltkamp, R.C.: Polygon decomposition based on the straight line skeleton. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual symposium on Computational geometry, pp. 58–67 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prasad, L.: Rectification of the chordal axis transform and a new criterion for shape decomposition. In: Andrès, É., Damiand, G., Lienhardt, P. (eds.) DGCI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3429, pp. 263–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blum, H.: Biological shape and visual science. Journal of Theoretical Biology 38, 205–287 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bai, X., Latecki, L.: Path similarity skeleton graph matching. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 30 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baseski, E., Erdem, A., Tari, S.: Dissimilarity between two skeletal trees in a context. Pattern Recognition (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • JingTing Zeng
    • 1
  • Rolf Lakaemper
    • 1
  • XingWei Yang
    • 1
  • Xin Li
    • 1
  1. 1.CIS DepartmentTemple UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations