Cargando…

A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles

Object recognition represents the ability of a system to identify objects, humans or animals in images. Within this domain, this work presents a comparative analysis among different classification methods aiming at Tactode tile recognition. The covered methods include: (i) machine learning with HOG...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Silva, Daniel, Sousa, Armando, Costa, Valter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34460515
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7040065
_version_ 1783730834116706304
author Silva, Daniel
Sousa, Armando
Costa, Valter
author_facet Silva, Daniel
Sousa, Armando
Costa, Valter
author_sort Silva, Daniel
collection PubMed
description Object recognition represents the ability of a system to identify objects, humans or animals in images. Within this domain, this work presents a comparative analysis among different classification methods aiming at Tactode tile recognition. The covered methods include: (i) machine learning with HOG and SVM; (ii) deep learning with CNNs such as VGG16, VGG19, ResNet152, MobileNetV2, SSD and YOLOv4; (iii) matching of handcrafted features with SIFT, SURF, BRISK and ORB; and (iv) template matching. A dataset was created to train learning-based methods (i and ii), and with respect to the other methods (iii and iv), a template dataset was used. To evaluate the performance of the recognition methods, two test datasets were built: tactode_small and tactode_big, which consisted of 288 and 12,000 images, holding 2784 and 96,000 regions of interest for classification, respectively. SSD and YOLOv4 were the worst methods for their domain, whereas ResNet152 and MobileNetV2 showed that they were strong recognition methods. SURF, ORB and BRISK demonstrated great recognition performance, while SIFT was the worst of this type of method. The methods based on template matching attained reasonable recognition results, falling behind most other methods. The top three methods of this study were: VGG16 with an accuracy of 99.96% and 99.95% for tactode_small and tactode_big, respectively; VGG19 with an accuracy of 99.96% and 99.68% for the same datasets; and HOG and SVM, which reached an accuracy of 99.93% for tactode_small and 99.86% for tactode_big, while at the same time presenting average execution times of 0.323 s and 0.232 s on the respective datasets, being the fastest method overall. This work demonstrated that VGG16 was the best choice for this case study, since it minimised the misclassifications for both test datasets.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8321360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83213602021-08-26 A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles Silva, Daniel Sousa, Armando Costa, Valter J Imaging Article Object recognition represents the ability of a system to identify objects, humans or animals in images. Within this domain, this work presents a comparative analysis among different classification methods aiming at Tactode tile recognition. The covered methods include: (i) machine learning with HOG and SVM; (ii) deep learning with CNNs such as VGG16, VGG19, ResNet152, MobileNetV2, SSD and YOLOv4; (iii) matching of handcrafted features with SIFT, SURF, BRISK and ORB; and (iv) template matching. A dataset was created to train learning-based methods (i and ii), and with respect to the other methods (iii and iv), a template dataset was used. To evaluate the performance of the recognition methods, two test datasets were built: tactode_small and tactode_big, which consisted of 288 and 12,000 images, holding 2784 and 96,000 regions of interest for classification, respectively. SSD and YOLOv4 were the worst methods for their domain, whereas ResNet152 and MobileNetV2 showed that they were strong recognition methods. SURF, ORB and BRISK demonstrated great recognition performance, while SIFT was the worst of this type of method. The methods based on template matching attained reasonable recognition results, falling behind most other methods. The top three methods of this study were: VGG16 with an accuracy of 99.96% and 99.95% for tactode_small and tactode_big, respectively; VGG19 with an accuracy of 99.96% and 99.68% for the same datasets; and HOG and SVM, which reached an accuracy of 99.93% for tactode_small and 99.86% for tactode_big, while at the same time presenting average execution times of 0.323 s and 0.232 s on the respective datasets, being the fastest method overall. This work demonstrated that VGG16 was the best choice for this case study, since it minimised the misclassifications for both test datasets. MDPI 2021-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8321360/ /pubmed/34460515 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7040065 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Silva, Daniel
Sousa, Armando
Costa, Valter
A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles
title A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles
title_full A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles
title_fullStr A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles
title_short A Comparative Analysis for 2D Object Recognition: A Case Study with Tactode Puzzle-Like Tiles
title_sort comparative analysis for 2d object recognition: a case study with tactode puzzle-like tiles
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8321360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34460515
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7040065
work_keys_str_mv AT silvadaniel acomparativeanalysisfor2dobjectrecognitionacasestudywithtactodepuzzleliketiles
AT sousaarmando acomparativeanalysisfor2dobjectrecognitionacasestudywithtactodepuzzleliketiles
AT costavalter acomparativeanalysisfor2dobjectrecognitionacasestudywithtactodepuzzleliketiles
AT silvadaniel comparativeanalysisfor2dobjectrecognitionacasestudywithtactodepuzzleliketiles
AT sousaarmando comparativeanalysisfor2dobjectrecognitionacasestudywithtactodepuzzleliketiles
AT costavalter comparativeanalysisfor2dobjectrecognitionacasestudywithtactodepuzzleliketiles