Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:13:11.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - Using Simple Features and Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2010

Sven J. Dickinson
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Aleš Leonardis
Affiliation:
University of Ljubljana
Bernt Schiele
Affiliation:
Technische Universität, Darmstadt, Germany
Michael J. Tarr
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University, Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

Introduction

One possible approach to category recognition is to model object categories as graphs of features, and to focus mainly on the second-order (pairwise) relationships between them: category-dependent as well as perceptual grouping constraints. This differs from the popular bag-of-words model (Csurka et al. 2004), which concentrates exclusively on local features, ignoring the higher-order interactions between them. The main observation is that higher-order relationships between model features are more important for category recognition than local, first-order features. Earlier studies support the view that simple, unary features, without higher-order relationships (such as geometric constraints or conjunctions of properties), are not sufficient at higher cognitive levels where object category recognition takes place (Treisman 1986; Hummel 2000). The importance of using pairwise relationships between features was recognized early on, starting with Ullman's theory of the correspondence process, which introduced the notion of correspondence strength that takes into consideration both the local/unary affinities, but also pairwise interactions between features (Marr 1982).

More generally, using pairwise or global geometric constraints between contour fragments was explored extensively in early work. For example, interpretation trees were used to find correspondences between contour fragments, aligning an object model and the object instance in a novel image of a cluttered scene (Grimson and Lozano-Pérez 1987; Grimson 1990a). Other approaches relied on more global techniques based on transformation voting alignment (Lowe 1985), as well as geometric reasoning on groups of fragments (Goad 1983; Brooks 1981).

Type
Chapter
Information
Object Categorization
Computer and Human Vision Perspectives
, pp. 369 - 383
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×