Comparing cooccurrence probabilities and Markov random fields for texture analysis of SAR sea ice imagery

被引:121
作者
Clausi, DA [1 ]
Yue, B
机构
[1] Univ Waterloo, Dept Syst Design Engn, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
[2] Noetix Res Inc, Ottawa, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
[3] Canada Ctr Remote Sensing, Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y7, Canada
来源
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING | 2004年 / 42卷 / 01期
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
comparison; discrimination ability; gray-level cooccurrence probability (GLCP); Markov random fields (MRFs); remote sensing; segmentation; texture features;
D O I
10.1109/TGRS.2003.817218
中图分类号
P3 [地球物理学]; P59 [地球化学];
学科分类号
0708 ; 070902 ;
摘要
This paper compares the discrimination ability of two texture analysis methods: Markov random fields (MRFs) and gray-level cooccurrence probabilities (GLCPs). There exists limited published research comparing different texture methods, especially with regard to segmenting remotely sensed imagery. The role of window size in texture feature consistency and separability as well as the role in handling of multiple textures within a window are investigated. Necessary testing is performed on samples of synthetic (MRF generated), Brodatz, and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) sea ice imagery. GLCPs are demonstrated to have improved discrimination ability relative to MRFs with decreasing window size, which is important when performing image segmentation. On the other hand, GLCPs are more sensitive to texture boundary confusion than MRFs given their respective segmentation procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:215 / 228
页数:14
相关论文
共 31 条
[21]   Multiresolution Gauss-Markov random field models for texture segmentation [J].
Krishnamachari, S ;
Chellappa, R .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, 1997, 6 (02) :251-267
[22]   UNSUPERVISED TEXTURE SEGMENTATION USING MARKOV RANDOM FIELD MODELS [J].
MANJUNATH, BS ;
CHELLAPPA, R .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 1991, 13 (05) :478-482
[23]   PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR 4 CLASSES OF TEXTURAL FEATURES [J].
OHANIAN, PP ;
DUBES, RC .
PATTERN RECOGNITION, 1992, 25 (08) :819-833
[24]   A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on feature distributions [J].
Ojala, T ;
Pietikainen, M ;
Harwood, D .
PATTERN RECOGNITION, 1996, 29 (01) :51-59
[25]   A comparison of texture feature extraction using adaptive Gabor filtering, pyramidal and tree structured wavelet transforms [J].
Pichler, O ;
Teuner, A ;
Hosticka, BJ .
PATTERN RECOGNITION, 1996, 29 (05) :733-742
[26]   Filtering for texture classification: A comparative study [J].
Randen, T ;
Husoy, JH .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 1999, 21 (04) :291-310
[28]   Texture analysis of SAR sea ice imagery using gray level co-occurrence matrices [J].
Soh, LK ;
Tsatsoulis, C .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, 1999, 37 (02) :780-795
[29]  
Tuceryan M., 1993, Handbook of pattern recognition and computer vision, P235, DOI [10.1142/9789814343138_0010, DOI 10.1142/9789814343138_0010]
[30]   COMPARATIVE-STUDY OF TEXTURE MEASURES FOR TERRAIN CLASSIFICATION [J].
WESZKA, JS ;
DYER, CR ;
ROSENFELD, A .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS MAN AND CYBERNETICS, 1976, 6 (04) :269-285