CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Object-Based Image Analysis: A Review of Developments and Future Directions of Automated Feature Detection in Landscape Archaeology

Davis, Dylan S.·2019·Archaeological Prospection
DOI 10.1002/arp.1730
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Object‐based image analysis (OBIA) is a method of assessing remote sensing data that uses morphometric and spectral parameters simultaneously to identify features in remote sensing imagery. Over the past 10–15 years, OBIA methods have been introduced to detect archaeological features. Improvements in accuracy have been attained by using a greater number of morphometric variables and multiple scales of analysis. This article highlights the developments that have occurred in the application of OBIA within archaeology and argues that OBIA is both a useful and necessary tool for archaeological research. Additionally, I discuss future research paths using this method. Some of the suggestions put forth here include: pushing for multifaceted research designs utilizing OBIA and manual interpretation, using OBIA methods for directly studying landscape settlement patterns, and increasing data sharing of methods between researchers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/arp.1730

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. 10.2307/j.ctvh1dqdz.22 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.jas.2014.07.017 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.05.003 · DOI
  4. 10.1017/S0003598X00094916 · DOI
  5. 10.1017/S0003598X00050766 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/arp.1429 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.jas.2005.10.012 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.06.004 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.09.014 · DOI
  10. Campbell K. M., 1981, Remote sensing: Conventional and infrared imagery for archaeologists, University of Calgary Archaeology Association, 11, 1
  11. 10.7183/2326-3768.2.3.222 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.099 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/978-1-4614-6074-9_21 · DOI
  14. 10.7203/SAGVNTVM.49.10025 · DOI
  15. Crumley C. L., 1979, Three locational models: An epistemological assessment for anthropology and archaeology, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 141
  16. 10.2307/281753 · DOI
  17. Davis D. S., A comparison of automated object extraction methods for earthwork feature identification in South Carolina, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
  18. 10.1080/0734578X.2018.1482186 · DOI
  19. 10.2307/j.ctt9qdxzk.9 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/01431160802705821 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.013 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.patcog.2012.03.003 · DOI
  23. Drager D. L., 1983, Remote Sensing in Cultural Resource Management
  24. 10.1016/j.jag.2013.04.005 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.011 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.11.011 · DOI
  27. 10.3390/rs10020225 · DOI
  28. 10.1177/1469605312439139 · DOI
  29. Hanson W. S., 2010, The future of aerial archaeology in Europe, Photo Interprétation. European Journal of Applied Remote Sensing, 46, 3
  30. 10.1007/978-1-4614-6074-9_22 · DOI
  31. 10.1007/978-3-540-77058-9_4 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.jag.2005.06.005 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.12.032 · DOI
  34. Hofmann P., 2013, Marble provenance designation with object based image analysis: state‐of‐the‐art rock fabric characterization from petrographic micrographs, Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences, 106, 40
  35. 10.1016/j.actaastro.2007.01.034 · DOI
  36. Jensen J. R., 2007, Remote Sensing of the Environment: An earth resource perspective
  37. 10.7183/2326-3768.4.1.87 · DOI
  38. 10.3390/rs9030290 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.cageo.2013.02.007 · DOI
  40. Kumar M. J., 2014, Review on image segmentation techniques, International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology, 3, 992
  41. Kvamme K., 2013, Computational Approaches to Archaeological Spaces, 53
  42. 10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9_7 · DOI
  43. Lamotte A., 2016, Arché‐OBIA: Un concept d’analyse quantitative d’images numériques appliqué aux bifaces du gisement de Gouzeaucourt (Nord, FR), Notae Praehistoricae, 36, 121
  44. 10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.032 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/j.jas.2006.04.014 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/s10712-018-9480-4 · DOI
  47. 10.1002/arp.1565 · DOI
  48. Menze B. H., 2007, Broadening Horizons: Multidisciplinary approaches to landscape study, 5
  49. 10.1073/pnas.1115472109 · DOI
  50. 10.14358/PERS.72.3.321 · DOI
  51. 10.1080/00438243.2014.890913 · DOI
  52. 10.1007/s10816-012-9140-9 · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2010.11.001 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1109/TC.1978.1675128 · DOI
  55. 10.4324/9780203881460 · DOI · Paper page
  56. 10.3997/1873-0604.2014014 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2014.11.010 · DOI
  58. 10.1017/aap.2017.13 · DOI
  59. Riley M. A.(2009).Automated detection of prehistoric conical burial mounds from LIDAR bare‐earth digital elevation models (Master's thesis). Department of Geology and Geography Northwest Missouri State University Maryville Missouri.
  60. 10.7183/0002-7316.75.4.792 · DOI
  61. 10.1016/j.jas.2014.10.026 · DOI
  62. 10.1002/arp.1497 · DOI
  63. 10.1080/01431161.2013.802054 · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.12.023 · DOI
  65. Sevara C., 2014, Archaeological feature classification: An object oriented approach, Southeastern European Journal of Earth Observation and Geomatics, 3, 139
  66. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.03.012 · DOI
  67. 10.3390/geosciences7040128 · DOI
  68. 10.1002/arp.339 · DOI
  69. 10.1002/arp.1421 · DOI
  70. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.01.005 · DOI
  71. Trimble, 2016, eCognition version 9.2, 1
  72. Van Ess M., 2006, Angewandte Geoinformatik; Beiträge zum, 668
  73. 10.1016/j.jas.2011.11.001 · DOI
  74. 10.3390/rs9090880 · DOI
  75. Weng Q., 2010, Remote Sensing and GIS Integration: Theories, methods, and applications
  76. 10.1080/15481603.2018.1431356 · DOI
  77. 10.1109/TGRS.2016.2545919 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Davis, D. S.
Affiliations
Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University University Park PA USA
ORCID
Davis, Dylan S.
Venue
Archaeological Prospection
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-11-22
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
155-163
ISSN
  • 1075-2196
  • 1099-0763
DOI
10.1002/arp.1730
Cited by
92
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review