Curves vs skeletons in object recognition

The type of representation used in describing shape can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of a recognition strategy. Shape has been represented by its bounding curve as well as by the medial axis representation which captures the regional interaction of the boundaries. Shape matching with the former representation is achieved by curve matching, while the latter is achieved by matching skeletal graphs. We compare the effectiveness of these two methods using approaches which we have developed recently for each. The results indicate that skeletal matching involves a higher degree of computational complexity, but is better than curve matching in the presence of articulation or rearrangement of parts. However, when these variations are not present, curve matching is a better strategy due to its lower complexity and roughly equivalent recognition rate.

[1]  Laurent Younes,et al.  Computable Elastic Distances Between Shapes , 1998, SIAM J. Appl. Math..

[2]  Kaleem Siddiqi,et al.  Matching Hierarchical Structures Using Association Graphs , 1999, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[3]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  A tree-edit-distance algorithm for comparing simple, closed shapes , 2000, SODA '00.

[4]  Daphna Weinshall,et al.  Flexible Syntactic Matching of Curves and Its Application to Automatic Hierarchical Classification of Silhouettes , 1999, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[5]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  Alignment-Based Recognition of Shape Outlines , 2001, IWVF.

[6]  Philip N. Klein,et al.  Recognition of Shapes by Editing Shock Graphs , 2001, ICCV.

[7]  Tyng-Luh Liu,et al.  Approximate tree matching and shape similarity , 1999, Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[8]  Benjamin B. Kimia,et al.  Symmetry-Based Indexing of Image Databases , 1998, J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent..

[9]  Euripides G. M. Petrakis,et al.  Shape retrieval based on dynamic programming , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..