Machine learned boundary definitions for an expert's tracing assistant in image processing
Date
2003
Authors
Crawford-Hines, Stewart, author
Anderson, Charles W., advisor
Draper, Bruce A. (Bruce Austin), 1962-, committee member
Beveridge, J. Ross, committee member
Alciatore, David G., committee member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Abstract
Most image processing work addressing boundary definition tasks embeds the assumption that an edge in an image corresponds to the boundary of interest in the world. In straightforward imagery this is true, however it is not always the case. There are images in which edges are indistinct or obscure, and these images can only be segmented by a human expert. The work in this dissertation addresses the range of imagery between the two extremes of those straightforward images and those requiring human guidance to appropriately segment. By freeing systems of a priori edge definitions and building in a mechanism to learn the boundary definitions needed, systems can do better and be more broadly applicable. This dissertation presents the construction of such a boundary-learning system and demonstrates the validity of this premise on real data. A framework was created for the task in which expert-provided boundary exemplars are used to create training data, which in turn are used by a neural network to learn the task and replicate the expert's boundary tracing behavior. This is the framework for the Expert's Tracing Assistant (ETA) system. For a representative set of nine structures in the Visible Human imagery, ETA was compared and contrasted to two state-of-the-art, user guided methods--Intelligent Scissors (IS) and Active Contour Models (ACM). Each method was used to define a boundary, and the distances between these boundaries and an expert's ground truth were compared. Across independent trials, there will be a natural variation in an expert's boundary tracing, and this degree of variation served as a benchmark against which these three methods were compared. For simple structural boundaries, all the methods were equivalent. However, in more difficult cases, ETA was shown to significantly better replicate the expert's boundary than either IS or ACM. In these cases, where the expert's judgement was most called into play to bound the structure, ACM and IS could not adapt to the boundary character used by the expert while ETA could.
Description
Department Head: Anton Willem Bohm.