Loading…
A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms
An evaluation of the ability of four texture analysis algorithms to perform automatic texture discrimination will be described. The algorithms which will be examined are the spatial gray level dependence method (SGLDM), the gray level run length method (GLRLM), the gray level difference method (GLDM...
Saved in:
Published in: | IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 1980-05, Vol.PAMI-2 (3), p.204-222 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-8dd7dc91f6165899b9c02a8ef734d49fc7bd10bf9b0243844833bdb9833255da3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-8dd7dc91f6165899b9c02a8ef734d49fc7bd10bf9b0243844833bdb9833255da3 |
container_end_page | 222 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 204 |
container_title | IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence |
container_volume | PAMI-2 |
creator | Conners, Richard W. Harlow, Charles A. |
description | An evaluation of the ability of four texture analysis algorithms to perform automatic texture discrimination will be described. The algorithms which will be examined are the spatial gray level dependence method (SGLDM), the gray level run length method (GLRLM), the gray level difference method (GLDM), and the power spectral method (PSM). The evaluation procedure employed does not depend on the set of features used with each algorithm or the pattern recognition scheme. Rather, what is examined is the amount of texturecontext information contained in the spatial gray level dependence matrices, the gray level run length matrices, the gray level difference density functions, and the power spectrum. The comparison will be performed in two steps. First, only Markov generated textures will be considered. The Markov textures employed are similar to the ones used by perceptual psychologist B. Julesz in his investigations of human texture perception. These Markov textures provide a convenient mechanism for generating certain example texture pairs which are important in the analysis process. In the second part of the analysis the results obtained by considering only Markov textures will be extended to all textures which can be represented by translation stationary random fields of order two. This generalization clearly includes a much broader class of textures than Markovian ones. The results obtained indicate that the SGLDM is the most powerful algorithm of the four considered, and that the GLDM is more powerful than the PSM. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1109/TPAMI.1980.4767008 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_ieee_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ieee_primary_4767008</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>4767008</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>885564659</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-8dd7dc91f6165899b9c02a8ef734d49fc7bd10bf9b0243844833bdb9833255da3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kDtPwzAYRS0EoqXwB0BC2ZgS7PiRz2NUFahUBEOYLSd2aFBSFzuR4N-T0sd0h3vuHQ5CtwQnhGD5WLznr8uESMAJy0SGMZyhKZFUxpRTeY6mmIg0Bkhhgq5C-MKYMI7pJZqkBASAZFOU5FGxts7bvql0G81dt9W-CW4TuToq7E8_eBvl7afzTb_uwjW6qHUb7M0hZ-jjaVHMX-LV2_Nynq_iioLoYzAmM5UktSCCg5SlrHCqwdYZZYbJuspKQ3BZyxKnjAJjQGlpSjlGyrnRdIYe9r9b774HG3rVNaGybas31g1BAXAumOByJNM9WXkXgre12vqm0_5XEax2mtS_JrXTpA6axtH94X4oO2tOk6OXEbjbA4219lQf5390-2rl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>885564659</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms</title><source>IEEE Xplore (Online service)</source><creator>Conners, Richard W. ; Harlow, Charles A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Conners, Richard W. ; Harlow, Charles A.</creatorcontrib><description>An evaluation of the ability of four texture analysis algorithms to perform automatic texture discrimination will be described. The algorithms which will be examined are the spatial gray level dependence method (SGLDM), the gray level run length method (GLRLM), the gray level difference method (GLDM), and the power spectral method (PSM). The evaluation procedure employed does not depend on the set of features used with each algorithm or the pattern recognition scheme. Rather, what is examined is the amount of texturecontext information contained in the spatial gray level dependence matrices, the gray level run length matrices, the gray level difference density functions, and the power spectrum. The comparison will be performed in two steps. First, only Markov generated textures will be considered. The Markov textures employed are similar to the ones used by perceptual psychologist B. Julesz in his investigations of human texture perception. These Markov textures provide a convenient mechanism for generating certain example texture pairs which are important in the analysis process. In the second part of the analysis the results obtained by considering only Markov textures will be extended to all textures which can be represented by translation stationary random fields of order two. This generalization clearly includes a much broader class of textures than Markovian ones. The results obtained indicate that the SGLDM is the most powerful algorithm of the four considered, and that the GLDM is more powerful than the PSM.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0162-8828</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-3539</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/TPAMI.1980.4767008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21868894</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ITPIDJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: IEEE</publisher><subject>Algorithm design and analysis ; Comparison study ; Cyclic redundancy check ; Density functional theory ; Humans ; Image processing ; Image texture analysis ; Pattern recognition ; Performance analysis ; Performance evaluation ; Psychology ; texture analysis</subject><ispartof>IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 1980-05, Vol.PAMI-2 (3), p.204-222</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-8dd7dc91f6165899b9c02a8ef734d49fc7bd10bf9b0243844833bdb9833255da3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-8dd7dc91f6165899b9c02a8ef734d49fc7bd10bf9b0243844833bdb9833255da3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4767008$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906,54777</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21868894$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Conners, Richard W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harlow, Charles A.</creatorcontrib><title>A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms</title><title>IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence</title><addtitle>TPAMI</addtitle><addtitle>IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell</addtitle><description>An evaluation of the ability of four texture analysis algorithms to perform automatic texture discrimination will be described. The algorithms which will be examined are the spatial gray level dependence method (SGLDM), the gray level run length method (GLRLM), the gray level difference method (GLDM), and the power spectral method (PSM). The evaluation procedure employed does not depend on the set of features used with each algorithm or the pattern recognition scheme. Rather, what is examined is the amount of texturecontext information contained in the spatial gray level dependence matrices, the gray level run length matrices, the gray level difference density functions, and the power spectrum. The comparison will be performed in two steps. First, only Markov generated textures will be considered. The Markov textures employed are similar to the ones used by perceptual psychologist B. Julesz in his investigations of human texture perception. These Markov textures provide a convenient mechanism for generating certain example texture pairs which are important in the analysis process. In the second part of the analysis the results obtained by considering only Markov textures will be extended to all textures which can be represented by translation stationary random fields of order two. This generalization clearly includes a much broader class of textures than Markovian ones. The results obtained indicate that the SGLDM is the most powerful algorithm of the four considered, and that the GLDM is more powerful than the PSM.</description><subject>Algorithm design and analysis</subject><subject>Comparison study</subject><subject>Cyclic redundancy check</subject><subject>Density functional theory</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image processing</subject><subject>Image texture analysis</subject><subject>Pattern recognition</subject><subject>Performance analysis</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>texture analysis</subject><issn>0162-8828</issn><issn>1939-3539</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1980</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kDtPwzAYRS0EoqXwB0BC2ZgS7PiRz2NUFahUBEOYLSd2aFBSFzuR4N-T0sd0h3vuHQ5CtwQnhGD5WLznr8uESMAJy0SGMZyhKZFUxpRTeY6mmIg0Bkhhgq5C-MKYMI7pJZqkBASAZFOU5FGxts7bvql0G81dt9W-CW4TuToq7E8_eBvl7afzTb_uwjW6qHUb7M0hZ-jjaVHMX-LV2_Nynq_iioLoYzAmM5UktSCCg5SlrHCqwdYZZYbJuspKQ3BZyxKnjAJjQGlpSjlGyrnRdIYe9r9b774HG3rVNaGybas31g1BAXAumOByJNM9WXkXgre12vqm0_5XEax2mtS_JrXTpA6axtH94X4oO2tOk6OXEbjbA4219lQf5390-2rl</recordid><startdate>198005</startdate><enddate>198005</enddate><creator>Conners, Richard W.</creator><creator>Harlow, Charles A.</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198005</creationdate><title>A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms</title><author>Conners, Richard W. ; Harlow, Charles A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-8dd7dc91f6165899b9c02a8ef734d49fc7bd10bf9b0243844833bdb9833255da3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1980</creationdate><topic>Algorithm design and analysis</topic><topic>Comparison study</topic><topic>Cyclic redundancy check</topic><topic>Density functional theory</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image processing</topic><topic>Image texture analysis</topic><topic>Pattern recognition</topic><topic>Performance analysis</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>texture analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Conners, Richard W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harlow, Charles A.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Conners, Richard W.</au><au>Harlow, Charles A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms</atitle><jtitle>IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence</jtitle><stitle>TPAMI</stitle><addtitle>IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell</addtitle><date>1980-05</date><risdate>1980</risdate><volume>PAMI-2</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>204</spage><epage>222</epage><pages>204-222</pages><issn>0162-8828</issn><eissn>1939-3539</eissn><coden>ITPIDJ</coden><abstract>An evaluation of the ability of four texture analysis algorithms to perform automatic texture discrimination will be described. The algorithms which will be examined are the spatial gray level dependence method (SGLDM), the gray level run length method (GLRLM), the gray level difference method (GLDM), and the power spectral method (PSM). The evaluation procedure employed does not depend on the set of features used with each algorithm or the pattern recognition scheme. Rather, what is examined is the amount of texturecontext information contained in the spatial gray level dependence matrices, the gray level run length matrices, the gray level difference density functions, and the power spectrum. The comparison will be performed in two steps. First, only Markov generated textures will be considered. The Markov textures employed are similar to the ones used by perceptual psychologist B. Julesz in his investigations of human texture perception. These Markov textures provide a convenient mechanism for generating certain example texture pairs which are important in the analysis process. In the second part of the analysis the results obtained by considering only Markov textures will be extended to all textures which can be represented by translation stationary random fields of order two. This generalization clearly includes a much broader class of textures than Markovian ones. The results obtained indicate that the SGLDM is the most powerful algorithm of the four considered, and that the GLDM is more powerful than the PSM.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>IEEE</pub><pmid>21868894</pmid><doi>10.1109/TPAMI.1980.4767008</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0162-8828 |
ispartof | IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 1980-05, Vol.PAMI-2 (3), p.204-222 |
issn | 0162-8828 1939-3539 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_ieee_primary_4767008 |
source | IEEE Xplore (Online service) |
subjects | Algorithm design and analysis Comparison study Cyclic redundancy check Density functional theory Humans Image processing Image texture analysis Pattern recognition Performance analysis Performance evaluation Psychology texture analysis |
title | A Theoretical Comparison of Texture Algorithms |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T15%3A16%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_ieee_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Theoretical%20Comparison%20of%20Texture%20Algorithms&rft.jtitle=IEEE%20transactions%20on%20pattern%20analysis%20and%20machine%20intelligence&rft.au=Conners,%20Richard%20W.&rft.date=1980-05&rft.volume=PAMI-2&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=204&rft.epage=222&rft.pages=204-222&rft.issn=0162-8828&rft.eissn=1939-3539&rft.coden=ITPIDJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/TPAMI.1980.4767008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_ieee_%3E885564659%3C/proquest_ieee_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-8dd7dc91f6165899b9c02a8ef734d49fc7bd10bf9b0243844833bdb9833255da3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=885564659&rft_id=info:pmid/21868894&rft_ieee_id=4767008&rfr_iscdi=true |