Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 335

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved gait recognition by gait dynamics normalization

Zongyi Liu, Sarkar, S.·2006·IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

Abstract

Potential sources for gait biometrics can be seen to derive from two aspects: gait shape and gait dynamics. We show that improved gait recognition can be achieved after normalization of dynamics and focusing on the shape information. We normalize for gait dynamics using a generic walking model, as captured by a population Hidden Markov Model (pHMM) defined for a set of individuals. The states of this pHMM represent gait stances over one gait cycle and the observations are the silhouettes of the corresponding gait stances. For each sequence, we first use Viterbi decoding of the gait dynamics to arrive at one dynamics-normalized, averaged, gait cycle of fixed length. The distance between two sequences is the distance between the two corresponding dynamics-normalized gait cycles, which we quantify by the sum of the distances between the corresponding gait stances. Distances between two silhouettes from the same generic gait stance are computed in the linear discriminant analysis space so as to maximize the discrimination between persons, while minimizing the variations of the same subject under different conditions. The distance computation is constructed so that it is invariant to dilations and erosions of the silhouettes. This helps us handle variations in silhouette shape that can occur with changing imaging conditions. We present results on three different, publicly available, data sets. First, we consider the HumanlD Gait Challenge data set, which is the largest gait benchmarking data set that is available (122 subjects), exercising five different factors, i.e., viewpoint, shoe, surface, carrying condition, and time. We significantly improve the performance across the hard experiments involving surface change and briefcase carrying conditions. Second, we also show improved performance on the UMD gait data set that exercises time variations for 55 subjects. Third, on the CMU Mobo data set, we show results for matching across different walking speeds. It is worth noting that there was no separate training for the UMD and CMU data sets.

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 · 10.1109/tpami.2006.122

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Liu, Z., & Sarkar, S.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
Published
2006-06
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
863-876
ISSN
0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138350282
Cited by
335
References
1
FWCI
14.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.