KI 2005 Workshop 7 Mixed-reality as a challenge to image understanding and artificial intelligence September 11 th , 2005 Koblenz

Knowledge representation and annotation of multimedia doc uments typically have been pursued in two different directions. Previous approac hes have focused either on low level descriptors, such as dominant color , or on the content dimension and corresponding manual annotations, such as personor vehicle. In this paper, we present a knowledge infrastructure to bri dge the gap between the two directions. Ontologies are being extend ed and enriched to include low-level audiovisual features and descriptors. Additionally, a too l f r linking low-level MPEG-7 visual descriptions to ontologies and annotations has been develope d. In this way, we construct ontologies that include prototypical instances of domain concepts tog ether with a formal specification of the corresponding visual descriptors. Thus, we combine high-l evel domain concepts and low-level multimedia descriptions, enabling for new media content an alysis.

[1]  C. Curtis,et al.  Persistent activity in the prefrontal cortex during working memory , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Rosalind W. Picard,et al.  Video Orbits of the Projective Group: A New Perspective on Image Mosaicing , 1995 .

[3]  S. Grossberg How does the cerebral cortex work? Development, learning, attention, and 3-D vision by laminar circuits of visual cortex. , 2003, Behavioral and cognitive neuroscience reviews.

[4]  L. McMillan,et al.  Plenoptic Modeling : An Image-Based Rendering Syst , 1995 .

[5]  R Hoeger Speed of Processing and Stimulus Complexity in Low-Frequency and High-Frequency Channels , 1997, Perception.

[6]  C. Grassl,et al.  Efficient hyperplane tracking by intelligent region selection , 2004, 6th IEEE Southwest Symposium on Image Analysis and Interpretation, 2004..

[7]  Richard Szeliski,et al.  Systems and Experiment Paper: Construction of Panoramic Image Mosaics with Global and Local Alignment , 2000, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[8]  Stefan Posch,et al.  Analysis of Object Interactions in Dynamic Scenes , 2002, DAGM-Symposium.

[9]  Massimo Poesio,et al.  Pronominalization revisited , 2000, COLING.

[10]  J. S. Nairne The myth of the encoding-retrieval match , 2002, Memory.

[11]  Refractor Vision , 2000, The Lancet.

[12]  F ROSENBLATT,et al.  The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. , 1958, Psychological review.

[13]  Christine D. Wilson,et al.  Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  C. Lollar Inner Vision , 1991, Science.

[15]  S. Ullman The visual recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1993 .

[16]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  An Efficient and Flexible Perception Pipeline for Autonomous Agents , 1999, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[17]  J. Wolfe Moving towards solutions to some enduring controversies in visual search , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[19]  Nicola S. Clayton,et al.  Episodic Memory , 2019, Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior.

[20]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Robert Dale,et al.  Building Natural Language Generation Systems: The Architecture of a Natural Language Generation System , 2000 .

[22]  A Baddeley,et al.  The fractionation of working memory. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  T. Braver Working Memory , Cognitive Control , and the Prefrontal Cortex : Computational and Empirical Studies , 2000 .