Efficient Optimal Multi-level Thresholding for Biofilm Image Segmentation
A microbial biofilm is structured mainly by a protective sticky matrix of extracellular polymeric substances. The appreciation of such structures is useful for the microbiologist and can be subjective to the observer. Thus, quantifying the underlying images in useful parameters by means of an objective image segmentation process helps substantially to reduce errors in quantification. This paper proposes an approach to segmentation of biofilm images using optimal multilevel thresholding and indices of clustering validity. A comparison of automatically segmented images with manual segmentation is done through different thresholding criteria, and clustering validity indices are used to find the correct number of thresholds, obtaining results similar to the segmentation done by an expert.
KeywordsImage Segmentation Extracellular Polymeric Substance Automatic Segmentation Manual Segmentation Cluster Validity
- 1.Claxton, N.S., Fellers, T.J., Davidson, M.W.: Laser scanning confocal microscopy. Technical report, Department of Optical Microscopy and Digital Imaging, The Florida State University (2006)Google Scholar
- 4.Unnikrishnan, R., Hebert, M.: Measures of similarity. In: Proceedings of Seventh IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision, Application of Computer Vision, vol. 1, pp. 394–401 (2005)Google Scholar
- 11.Rueda, L.: An efficient algorithm for optimal multilevel thresholding of irregularly sampled histograms. In: da Vitoria Lobo, N., Kasparis, T., Roli, F., Kwok, J.T., Georgiopoulos, M., Anagnostopoulos, G.C., Loog, M. (eds.) S+SSPR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5342, pp. 602–611. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Jorgensen, T.M., Haagensen, J., Sternberg, C., Molin, S.: Quantification of biofilm structure from confocal imaging. Technical report, Optics and Fluids Department, Riso National Laboratory (2003)Google Scholar
- 16.Klapper, I.: Effect of heterogeneous structure in mechanically unstressed biofilms on overall growth. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 809–824 (2006)Google Scholar