Comparison of Three Statistical Texture Measures for Lamb Grading

Texture is one of the most important features in the analysis of images. It has been increasingly used in computer vision applications. In this study, the ability of three statistical texture analysis measures to perform lamb grading were compared with respect to the classification accuracy. The texture measures examined were the grey level difference method (GLDM), the spatial grey level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) and the grey level run length matrix (GLRM). In addition, some image geometric features were also measured. The dimensionality of the input feature space was reduced using principal component analysis (PCA). The classification was performed using individual reduced feature sets and their combinations. Both discriminant function analysis (DFA) and artificial neural network (ANN) analysis were used for classification of lamb chop images into different grades. The results indicated that GLCM is the best texture measure, of the three texture measures considered, for lamb grading. The geometric features also performed equally well. Both GLCM and geometric features performed better than GLRM and GLDM. The higher classification performance was achieved by combining feature sets. The ANN produced higher classifications than DFA

[1]  B. Manly.  Multivariate Statistical Methods : A Primer , 1986 .

[2]  A. A. Goldenberg,et al.  Automation of meat pork grading process , 1997 .

[3]  Kazuhiko Shiranita,et al.  Grading meat quality by image processing , 2000, Pattern Recognit..

[4]  Meegalla R. Chandraratne,et al.  Prediction of lamb tenderness using image surface texture features , 2006 .

[5]  Kazuhiko Shiranita,et al.  Determination of meat quality by texture analysis , 1998, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[6]  J. Tan,et al.  Classification of tough and tender beef by image texture analysis. , 2001, Meat science.

[7]  Kazuhiko Shiranita,et al.  Grading Meat Quality by Image Processing. , 1997 .

[8]  Richard W. Conners,et al.  A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[9]  M.,et al.  Statistical and Structural Approaches to Texture , 2022 .

[10]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[11]  Leonardo Bocchi,et al.  A fractal approach to predict fat content in meat images , 2001, ISPA 2001. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Image and Signal Processing and Analysis. In conjunction with 23rd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces (IEEE Cat..

[12]  H. Heymann,et al.  Image texture features as indicators of beef tenderness. , 1999, Meat science.

[13]  Murray Smith,et al.  Neural Networks for Statistical Modeling , 1993 .

[14]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[15]  J. Tan,et al.  Beef Marbling and Color Score Determination by Image Processing , 1996 .

[16]  Richard C. Dubes,et al.  Performance evaluation for four classes of textural features , 1992, Pattern Recognit..

[17]  Matti Pietikäinen,et al.  A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions , 1996, Pattern Recognit..

[18]  Michael Spann,et al.  Texture feature performance for image segmentation , 1990, Pattern Recognit..

[19]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  Texture analysis Anno 1983 , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[20]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  A Comparative Study of Texture Measures for Terrain Classification , 1975, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[21]  Meegalla R. Chandraratne,et al.  Prediction of lamb carcass grades using features extracted from lamb chop images , 2006 .

[22]  J. M. Hans du Buf,et al.  A review of recent texture segmentation and feature extraction techniques , 1993 .

[23]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Texture Analysis , 2018, Handbook of Image Processing and Computer Vision.

[24]  H. R. Cross,et al.  Beef Carcass Evaluation by Use of a Video Image Analysis System , 1983 .