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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 1980-05, Vol.PAMI-2 (3), p.204-222
Main Authors: Conners, Richard W., Harlow, Charles A.
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