Selection of Local Thresholds for Tomogram Segmentation by Projection Distance Minimization

  • K. J. Batenburg
  • J. Sijbers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4992)


Segmentation is an important step to obtain quantitative information from tomographic data sets. To this end, global thresholding is often used in practice. However, it is usually not possible to obtain an accurate segmentation based on a single, global threshold. Instead, local thresholding schemes can be applied that use a varying threshold, depending on local characteristics of the tomogram. Selecting the best local thresholds is not a straightforward task, as local image features often do not provide sufficient information for choosing a proper threshold. Recently, the concept of projection distance was proposed as a new criterion for evaluating the quality of a tomogram segmentation. In this paper, we describe how Projection Distance Minimization (PDM) can be used to select local thresholds, based on the available projection data from which the tomogram was initially computed. By reprojecting the segmented image, a comparison can be made with the measured projection data. This yields a quantitative measure of the quality of the segmentation. By minimizing the difference between the computed and measured projections, optimal local thresholds can be computed.

Simulation experiments have been performed, comparing our local thresholding approach with an alternative local thresholding method and with optimal global thresholding. Our results demonstrate that the local thresholding approach yields segmentations that are significantly more accurate, in particular when the tomogram contains artifacts.


Coarse Grid Projection Data Bilinear Interpolation Thresholding Method Global Threshold 
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.


  1. 1.
    Eichler, M.J., Kim, C.H., Müller, R., Guo, X.E.: Impact of thresholding techniques on micro-CT image based computational models of trabecular bone. In: ASME Advances in Bioengineering, September 2000, vol. 48, pp. 215–216 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Glasbey, C.A.: An analysis of histogram-based thresholding algorithms. Graphical Models and Image Processing 55(6), 532–537 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenfeld, A., Torre, P.: Histogram concavity analysis as an aid in threshold selection. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. 13, 231–235 (1983)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ridler, T.W., Calvard, S.: Picture thresholding using an iterative selection method. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 8, 630–632 (1978)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Otsu, N.: A threshold selection method from gray level histograms. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. 9, 62–66 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kapur, J., Sahoo, P., Wong, A.: A new method for gray-level picture thresholding using the entropy of the histogram. Comp Vision, Graph, and Image Proc. 29(3), 273–285 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batenburg, K.J., Sijbers, J.: Automatic multiple threshold scheme for segmentation of tomograms. In: Pluim, Josien, P.W., Reinhardt, J.M. (eds.) Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, San Diego, CA, USA, February 2007, vol. 6512 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Batenburg, K.J., Sijbers, J.: Automatic threshold selection for tomogram segmentation by reprojection of the reconstructed image. In: Kropatsch, W.G., Kampel, M., Hanbury, A. (eds.) CAIP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4673, pp. 563–570. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abutaleb, A.S.: Automatic thresholding of grey-level pictures using two-dimensional entropies. Pattern Recognition 47, 22–32 (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brink, A.D.: Thresholding of digital images using two-dimensional entropies. Pattern Recognition 25, 803–808 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    White, J.M., Rohrer, G.D.: Image thresholding for optical character recognition and other applications requiring character image extraction. IBM Journal of Research and Development 27(4), 400–411 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eikvil, L., Taxt, T., Moen, K.: A fast adaptive method for binarization of document images. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, pp. 435–443 (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blayvas, I., Bruckstein, A., Kimmel, R.: Efficient computation of adaptive threshold surfaces for image binarization. Pattern Recognition 39(1), 89–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niblack, W.: An introduction to image processing. Englewood Cliffs, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kak, A.C., Slaney, M.: Principles of Computerized Tomographic Imaging. Volume Algorithms for reconstruction with non-diffracting sources, pp. 49–112. IEEE Press, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Herman, G.T., Kuba, A. (eds.): Advances in Discrete Tomography and Its Applications. Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. Birkhäuser, Boston (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gardner, R., Gritzmann, P., Prangenberg, D.: On the computational complexity of reconstructing lattice sets from their X-rays. Discrete Math. 202, 45–71 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. J. Batenburg
    • 1
  • J. Sijbers
    • 1
  1. 1.Vision Lab, Department of PhysicsUniversity of AntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations