The largest convex patches: A boundary-based method for obtaining object parts

The importance of boundaries for shape decomposition into component parts has been discussed from different points of view by Koenderink and van Doorn (1982), and by Hoffman and Richards (1984). The former define part boundaries as parabolic contours, whereas the latter propose that part boundaries should be defined by contours of negative minima (or maxima) of principal curvature. In this article, building on aspects of both approaches, we develop a new method for shape decomposition. This method relies exclusively on global properties of the surface which are fully characterized by local surface properties. We propose that a useful parcellation of shapes into parts can be obtained by decomposing the shape boundary into the largest convex surface patches and the smallest nonconvex surface patches. The essential computational steps of this method are the following: (i) build initial parts from the largest locally convex patches, (ii) consider an initial part as a constituent part if it is essentially convex, and (iii) obtain the remaining constituent parts by merging adjacent initial parts generated by the largest locally convex and the smallest nonconvex patches of nearly the same sizes. The method is illustrated on both smooth and continuous shapes. We show that the decomposition of shapes into the largest convex patches aims to maximize the “thingness” in an object, and to minimize its “non-thingness”. The method is conducive to a natural parcellation of shapes into constituent parts useful for recognition and for inferring function.

[1]  F. Bartlett,et al.  Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology , 1932 .

[2]  E. H. N. Anschauliche Geometrie , 1933, Nature.

[3]  E. Kruppa Anschauliche Geometrie , 1934 .

[4]  R. L. GREGORY Stereoscopic Shadow-images , 1964, Nature.

[5]  E. Rosch ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC CATEGORIES1 , 1973 .

[6]  H. Blum Biological shape and visual science (part I) , 1973 .

[7]  A. Taylor,et al.  The contribution of the right parietal lobe to object recognition. , 1973, Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior.

[8]  H. Blum Biological shape and visual science. I. , 1973, Journal of theoretical biology.

[9]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[10]  I. Faux,et al.  Computational Geometry for Design and Manufacture , 1979 .

[11]  J. Koenderink,et al.  The Shape of Smooth Objects and the Way Contours End , 1982, Perception.

[12]  M. Brady Criteria for Representations of Shape , 1983 .

[13]  Jean Serra,et al.  Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology , 1983 .

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

[15]  M. Brady,et al.  Smoothed Local Symmetries and Their Implementation , 1984 .

[16]  Jean Ponce,et al.  Describing surfaces , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[17]  I. Biederman Human image understanding: Recent research and a theory , 1985, Computer Vision Graphics and Image Processing.

[18]  Berthold K. P. Horn Robot vision , 1986, MIT electrical engineering and computer science series.

[19]  E. Warrington,et al.  Visual Object Recognition in Patients with Right-Hemisphere Lesions: Axes or Features? , 1986, Perception.

[20]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  Decomposition and approximation of three-dimensional solids , 1986, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

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

[22]  B. M. Bennett,et al.  Shape decomposition for visual recognition: the role of transversality , 1987 .

[23]  A. Pentland Recognition by Parts , 1987 .

[24]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  An internal representation for solid shape based on the topological properties of the apparent contour , 1987 .

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

[26]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[27]  Richard G. Kurial,et al.  Representation and recognition , 1990 .

[28]  Marie-Christine Jaulent,et al.  Object structure and action requirements: A compatibility model for functional recognition , 1991, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[29]  M. Tarr,et al.  Visual Object Recognition , 1996, ISTCS.

[30]  L. Vaina From shapes and movements to objects and actions , 2004, Synthese.