Feasibility of computer-aided identification of foraminiferal tests

Over the past two decades, several investigators have worked on computerized systems to accelerate the identification of foraminiferal tests (forams). Leading examples have focused on fully-automatic identification using neural networks and supervised learning. This paper introduces an alternative semi-automatic or computer-aided approach. Such an approach reduces the workload associated with foram identification without the challenges of training set collection and fully-automatic recognition. The proposed method begins by photographing a collection of specimens sprinkled on a microscopy slide. Segmented images are then mapped into a canonical space where position, rotation, and scale are normalized. Specimens are clustered based on image similarity in the canonical space. A specialist then identifies the clusters by inspecting representative templates. Experimental results show that the identification effort can be reduced by 35%, yet the accuracy remains comparable to when every specimen is individually identified. Further reduction of effort was prevented by the significant variability of illumination direction in the canonical images. These results encourage further work on a computer-aided approach to foram identification.

[1]  J. Zachos,et al.  Rapid diversification of planktonic foraminifera in the tropical Pacific (ODP Site 865) during the late Paleocene thermal maximum , 1996 .

[2]  J. P. Kennett,et al.  Abrupt deep-sea warming, palaeoceanographic changes and benthic extinctions at the end of the Palaeocene , 1991, Nature.

[3]  Ps Quinn,et al.  Automated particle analysis: calcareous microfossils , 2005 .

[4]  Yin Zhang,et al.  Maximum stable set formulations and heuristics based on continuous optimization , 2002, Math. Program..

[5]  Lionel Tarassenko,et al.  Guide to Neural Computing Applications , 1998 .

[6]  Richard J. Prokop,et al.  A survey of moment-based techniques for unoccluded object representation and recognition , 1992, CVGIP Graph. Model. Image Process..

[7]  P. Pardalos,et al.  Handbook of Combinatorial Optimization , 1998 .

[8]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Data clustering: a review , 1999, CSUR.

[9]  P. Deckker,et al.  Microfossil and stable-isotope evidence for changes in Late Holocene palaeoproductivity and palaeoceanographic conditions in the Prydz Bay region of Antarctica , 1997 .

[10]  S. Culver,et al.  Species diversity and dispersal of benthic foraminifera , 1991 .

[11]  Panos M. Pardalos,et al.  The maximum clique problem , 1994, J. Glob. Optim..

[12]  Dileepan Joseph,et al.  Analysis of image-based classification of foraminiferal tests , 2009 .

[13]  Luc Beaufort,et al.  Automatic recognition of coccoliths by dynamical neural networks , 2004 .

[14]  Rafael C. González,et al.  Local Determination of a Moving Contrast Edge , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[15]  P. A. Swaby,et al.  VIDES: an expert system for visually identifying microfossils , 1992, IEEE Expert.

[16]  D. Dollfus,et al.  Fat neural network for recognition of position-normalised objects , 1999, Neural Networks.

[17]  W. R. Riedel,et al.  IDENTIFY: a Prolog program to help identify fossils , 1989 .

[18]  J. Murray Biodiversity of living benthic foraminifera: How many species are there? , 2007 .

[19]  D. R. Brough,et al.  The Fossil expert system , 1986 .