Cited by 376Medical Image Segmentation TechniquesAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsCell Image Analysis Techniques

Convolutional Networks Can Learn to Generate Affinity Graphs for Image Segmentation

Open access
Turaga, Srinivas C., Murray, Joseph F., Jain, Viren, Roth, Fabian, Helmstaedter, Moritz, Briggman, Kevin, Denk, Winfried, Seung, H. Sebastian·2010·Neural Computation

Abstract

Many image segmentation algorithms first generate an affinity graph and then partition it. We present a machine learning approach to computing an affinity graph using a convolutional network (CN) trained using ground truth provided by human experts. The CN affinity graph can be paired with any standard partitioning algorithm and improves segmentation accuracy significantly compared to standard hand-designed affinity functions. We apply our algorithm to the challenging 3D segmentation problem of reconstructing neuronal processes from volumetric electron microscopy (EM) and show that we are able to learn a good affinity graph directly from the raw EM images. Further, we show that our affinity graph improves the segmentation accuracy of both simple and sophisticated graph partitioning algorithms. In contrast to previous work, we do not rely on prior knowledge in the form of hand-designed image features or image preprocessing. Thus, we expect our algorithm to generalize effectively to arbitrary image types.

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 · 10.1162/neco.2009.10-08-881

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The hemibrain images were automatically segmented using flood-filling convolutional nets, whereas FlyWire used boundary-detecting convolutional nets.

    “The hemibrain images were automatically segmented using flood-filling convolutional nets109, whereas FlyWire used the older, less computationally expensive approach of boundary-detecting convolutional nets110,111.”

    From Neuronal wiring diagram of an adult brain (2024) · cites this paper as [111]

    Sections 1 and 3 describe a convolutional network that predicts affinities between neighboring voxels, allowing segmentation along object boundaries. The paper’s dataset is retinal tissue (section 4.1); it does not say that FlyWire used this approach or compare its computational cost with flood-filling networks. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Al-Kofahi, K., Lasek, S., Szarowski, D., Pace, C., Nagy, G., Turner, J., et al. (2002). Rapid automated three-dimensional tracing of neurons from confocal image stacks. IEEE Trans. Info. Tech. Biomed., 6(2), 171-187.
  2. Andres, B., K öthe, U., Helmstaedter, M., Denk, W., & Hamprecht, F. A. (2008). Seg- mentation of SBFSEM volume data of neural tissue by hierarchical classification. In G. Rigoll (Ed.), Pattern recognition (vol. 5096 of LNCS, pp. 142-152). Berlin: Springer.
  3. Briggman, K. L., & Denk, W. (2006). Towards neural circuit reconstruction with volume electron microscopy techniques. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol., 16(5), 562- 570.
  4. Carlbom, I., Terzopoulos, D., & Harris, K. M. (1994). Computer-assisted registration, segmentation, and 3D reconstruction from images of neuronal tissue sections. IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging, 13(2), 351-362.
  5. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., Rivest, R. L., & Stein, C. (2000). Introduction to algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Cour, T., Benezit, F., & Shi, J. (2005). Spectral segmentation with multiscale graph decomposition. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Rec. (Vol. 2, 1124-1131). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
  7. Dhillon, I., Guan, Y., & Kulis, B. (2005). A fast kernel-based multilevel algorithm for graph clustering. In Proc. ACM SIGKDD Intl. Conf. Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining (pp. 629-634). New York: ACM Press.
  8. Egmont-Petersen, M., de Ridder, D., & Handels, H. (2002). Image processing with neural networks: A review. Pattern Recognition, 35(10), 2279-2301.
  9. Felzenszwalb, P., & Huttenlocher, D. (2004). Efficient graph-based image segmenta- tion. International Journal of Computer Vision, 59(2), 167-181.
  10. Fiala, J. C. (2005). Reconstruct: A free editor for serial section microscopy. Journal of Microscopy, 218(1), 52-61.
  11. Fowlkes, C., Martin, D., & Malik, J. (2003). Learning affinity functions for image seg- mentation: Combining patch-based and gradient-based approaches. . Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
  12. Gdalyahu, Y., Weinshall, D., & Werman, M. (1999). Stochastic image segmentation by typical cuts. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (Vol. 2, pp. 596-601). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
  13. Helmstaedter, M. N., Briggman, K. L., & Denk, W. (2007). Segmentation of SBFSEM volume data of neural tissue by hierarchical classification. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, pp. 142-152.
  14. Jain, V., Murray, J., Roth, F., Turaga, S., Zhigulin, V., Briggman, K., et al. (2007). Supervised learning of image restoration with convolutional networks. In Proc. Intl. Conf. Computer Vision. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
  15. LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. (1998). Gradient-based learning ap- plied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11), 2278-2324.
  16. LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Orr, G., & Muller, K. (1998). Efficient backprop. In G. Orr & K. Muller (Eds.), Neural networks: Tricks of the trade. Berlin: Springer.
  17. Liang, J., McInerney, T., & Terzopoulos, D. (2006). United Snakes. Medical Image Analysis, 10(2), 215-233.
  18. Martin, D. R., Fowlkes, C. C., & Malik, J. (2004). Learning to detect natural image boundaries using local brightness, color, and texture cues. IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26(1), 1-20.
  19. Nekovei, R., & Sun, Y. (1995). Back-propagation network and its configuration for blood vessel detection in angiograms. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, 6(1), 64-72.
  20. Ning, F., Delhomme, D., LeCun, Y., Piano, F., Bottou, L., & Barbano, P. E. (2005). Toward automatic phenotyping of developing embryos from videos. IEEE Trans- actions on Image Processing, 14(9), 1360-1371.
  21. Ricci, E., & Perfetti, R. (2007). Retinal blood vessel segmentation using line operators and support vector classification. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 26(10), 1357-1365.
  22. Shi, J., & Malik, J. (2000). Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(8), 888-905.
  23. Sinthanayothin, C., Boyce, J. F., Cook, H. L., & Williamson, T. H. (1999). Automated localisation of the optic disc, fovea, and retinal blood vessels from digital colour fundus images. British Journal of Opthalmology, 83, 902-910.
  24. Smith, S. (2007). Circuit reconstruction tools today. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(5), 601-608.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turaga, S. C., Murray, J. F., Jain, V., Roth, F., Helmstaedter, M., Briggman, K., Denk, W., & Seung, H. S.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Max Planck Institute for Medical Research (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Turaga, Srinivas C.
  • Murray, Joseph F.
  • Jain, Viren
  • Roth, Fabian
  • Helmstaedter, Moritz
  • Briggman, Kevin
  • Denk, Winfried
  • Seung, H. Sebastian
Venue
Neural Computation
Published
2010-02
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
511-538
ISSN
  • 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-888X
OpenAlex
W2169805405
Cited by
376
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 12
FWCI
12.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Medical Image Segmentation Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
image segmentation, graph partitioning, convolutional neural networks, 3D segmentation, graph-based segmentation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Mathematical Computing, Mathematics, Microscopy, Electron, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Neural Networks, Computer, Mathematical Concepts

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