Advertisement

A Comparison between Haralick´s Texture Descriptor and the Texture Descriptor Based on Random Sets for Biological Images

  • Anja Attig
  • Petra Perner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6871)

Abstract

Texture is a powerful method to describe the appearance of different biological objects in images. The most used texture descriptor is the well-known Haralick´s texture descriptor. We propose a texture descriptor based on random sets. This descriptor gives us more freedom in describing different textures. In this paper we compare the two texture descriptors based on a medical data set. We review the theory of the two texture descriptors and describe the procedure for the comparison of the two methods. A medical data set is used that is derived from colon examination. Decision tree induction is used to learn a classifier model. Cross-validation is used to calculate the error rate. The comparison of the two texture descriptors is based on the error rate, the properties of the two best classification models, the runtime for the feature calculation, the selected features, and the semantic meaning of the texture descriptors.

Keywords

Gray Level Texture Feature Class Image Semantic Meaning Boolean Model 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rao, A.R.: A Taxonomy for Texture Description and Identification. Springer, Berlin (1990)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haralick, R.H., Shanmugam, K., Dingstein, I.: Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 3(6), 610–621 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perner, P., Perner, H., Müller, B.: Mining Knowledge for Hep-2 Cell Image Classification. Journal Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (26), 161–173 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matheron, G.: Random Sets and Integral Geometry. J. Wiley&Sons, New York (1975)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stoyan, D., Kendall, W.S., Mecke, J.: Stochastic Geometry and Its Applications. Akademie, Berlin (1987)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrou, M., Bosdogianni, P.: Image processing: The fundamentals. Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheng, D.C., Ting, W.C., Chen, Y.F., Pu, Q., Jiang, X.: Colorectal Polyps Detection Using Texture Features and Support Vector Machine. In: Perner, P., Salvetti, O. (eds.) MDA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5108, pp. 62–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Data Mining Tool Decision Master, ibai-solutions, http://www.ibai-solutions.de

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anja Attig
    • 1
  • Petra Perner
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Computer Vision and applied Computer Sciences, IBaILeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations