Segmentation versus object representation—are they separable?

When vision is used for moving through the environment, for manipulating or for recognizing objects, it has to simplify the visual input to the level that is required for the specific task. To simplify means to partition images into entities that correspond to individual regions, objects and parts in the real world and to describe those entities only in detail sufficient for performing a required task. For visual discrimination, shape is probably the most important property. After all, line drawings of scenes and objects are usually sufficient for description and subsequent recognition. In computer vision literature this partitioning of images and description of individual parts is called segmentation and shape representation. Segmentation and shape representation appear to be distinct problems and are treated as such in most computer vision systems. In this paper we try to disperse this notion and show that there is no clear division between segmentation and shape representation. Solving any one of those two problems separately is very difficult. On the other hand, if any one of the two problems is solved first, the other one becomes much easier. For example, if the image is correctly divided into parts, the subsequent shape description of those parts gets easier. The opposite is also true when the shapes of parts are known, the partitioning of the image gets simpler.

[1]  R. Arnheim.  Art And Visual Perception , 1954 .

[2]  Richard O. Duda,et al.  Pattern classification and scene analysis , 1974, A Wiley-Interscience publication.

[3]  Ramakant Nevatia,et al.  Description and Recognition of Curved Objects , 1977, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[5]  Michael L. Baird.  Structural Pattern Recognition , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[6]  Rodney A. Brooks,et al.  Model-Based Three-Dimensional Interpretations of Two-Dimensional Images , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[7]  B. Tversky,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : General VOL . 113 , No . 2 JUNE 1984 Objects , Parts , and Categories , 2005 .

[8]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[9]  J J Koenderink,et al.  What Does the Occluding Contour Tell Us about Solid Shape? , 1984, Perception.

[10]  Andrew P. Witkin,et al.  Scale-space filtering: A new approach to multi-scale description , 1984, ICASSP.

[11]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[12]  Ramesh C. Jain,et al.  Three-dimensional object recognition , 1985, CSUR.

[13]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Perceptual Organization and the Representation of Natural Form , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Andrew Blake,et al.  Visual Reconstruction , 1987, Deep Learning for EEG-Based Brain–Computer Interfaces.

[15]  A. Pentland.  Perceptual organization and the representation of natural form , 1987 .

[16]  Ruzena Bajcsy,et al.  Segmentation of three-dimensional scenes using multi-modal interaction between machine vision and programmable, mechanical scene manipulation , 1987 .

[17]  R. Bajcsy,et al.  Three dimensional object representation revisited , 1987 .

[18]  R. Bajcsy,et al.  Shape recovery and segmentation with deformable part models , 1987 .

[19]  Ruzena Bajcsy,et al.  Adaptive Image Segmentation , 1988 .

[20]  Gregory D. Hager,et al.  Active reduction of uncertainty in multisensor systems , 1988 .

[21]  Alok Gupta.  Range Image Segmentation for 3-D Object Recognition , 1988 .

[22]  V. S. Ramachandran,et al.  Perception of shape from shading , 1988, Nature.