Computing Accurate Correspondences across Groups of Images
Abstract
Groupwise image registration algorithms seek to establish dense correspondences between sets of images. Typically, they involve iteratively improving the registration between each image and an evolving mean. A variety of methods have been proposed, which differ in their choice of objective function, representation of deformation field, and optimization methods. Given the complexity of the task, the final accuracy is significantly affected by the choices made for each component. Here, we present a groupwise registration algorithm which can take advantage of the statistics of both the image intensities and the range of shapes across the group to achieve accurate matching. By testing on large sets of images (in both 2D and 3D), we explore the effects of using different image representations and different statistical shape constraints. We demonstrate that careful choice of such representations can lead to significant improvements in overall performance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The minimum description length criterion is well-known for determining the best model from data; it has been used in image registration [119], face (texture and depth) registration [120] and medical data registration [121] in computer vision, but is relatively little used in computer graphics and shape analysis.
“In information theory, the minimum description length criterion is well-known for determining the best model from data; it has been used in image registration [119], face (texture and depth) registration [120] and medical data registration [121] in computer vision, but is relatively little used in computer graphics and shape analysis.”
From Registration of 3D Point Clouds and Meshes: A Survey from Rigid to Nonrigid (2013) · cites this paper as [119]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Cootes, T. F., Twining, C. J., Petrovic, V. S., Babalola, K. O., & Taylor, C. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1994-2005
- ISSN
- 0162-8828 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2121721759
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 7.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/F027044/1, GR/N14248/01, DT/F003072/1, GR/S82503/01)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
- Keywords
- dense correspondence, statistical shape models, shape constraints, 3D image registration
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Algorithms, Biometry, Brain, Child, Face, Humans, Image Enhancement, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Information Storage and Retrieval, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Young Adult
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