3D Statistical Shape Models Using Direct Optimisation of Description Length

  • Rhodri H. Davies
  • Carole J. Twining
  • Tim F. Cootes
  • John C. Waterton
  • Chris J. Taylor
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2352)


We describe an automatic method for building optimal 3D statistical shape models from sets of training shapes. Although shape models show considerable promise as a basis for segmenting and interpreting images, a major drawback of the approach is the need to establish a dense correspondence across a training set of example shapes. It is important to establish the correct correspondence, otherwise poor models can result. In 2D, this can be achieved using manual ‘landmarks’, but in 3D this becomes impractical. We show it is possible to establish correspondences automatically, by casting the correspondence problem as one of finding the ‘optimal’ parameterisation of each shape in the training set. We describe an explicit representation of surface parameterisation, that ensures the resulting correspondences are legal, and show how this representation can be manipulated to minimise the description length of the training set using the model. This results in compact models with good generalisation properties. Results are reported for two sets of biomedical shapes, showing significant improvement in model properties compared to those obtained using a uniform surface parameterisation.


Shape Model Minimum Description Length Active Shape Model Statistical Shape Model Shape Vector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Angenent, S., S. Haker, A. Tannenbaum and R. Kikinis: “On the laplace-beltrami operator and brain surface flattening”. IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging, 18: p. 700–711. 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brechbulher, C., G. Gerig and O. Kubler, “Parameterisation of closed surfaces for 3-D shape description”, in Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 61(2), p154–170, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brett A.D. and C.J. Taylor, “A Method of automated landmark generation for automated 3D PDM construction”, in Image and Vision Computing, 18(9), p. 739–748, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brett A.D. and C.J. Taylor, “Construction of 3D Shape Models of Femoral Articular Cartialge Using Harmonic Maps”, in MICCAI’00, p. 1205–1214, 2000Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cootes, T., A. Hill, C. Taylor, and J. Haslam, “The use of Active shape models for locating structures in medical images”. Image and Vision Computing, 12: p. 355–366. 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cootes, T., C. Taylor, D. Cooper and J. Graham, “Active shape models-their training and application”. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 61: p. 38–59. 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christensen, G. E., S. C. Joshi, M.I. Miller, “Volumetric Transformation of Brain Anatomy”, in IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging, 16, p864–877, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies, Rh. H., C.J. Twining, T.F. Cootes, J.C. Waterton and C.J. Taylor, “A Minimum Description Length Approach to Statistical Shape Modelling”, in IEEE trans. Medical Imaging, To appearGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davies, Rh. H., T.F. Cootes, C.J. Twining and C.J. Taylor, “An Information Theoretic Approach to Statistical Shape Modelling”, in British Machine Vision Conference-BMVC’01, p 3–12, 2001Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fluete, M., S. Lavalee, “Building a Complete Surface Model from Sparse Data Using Statistical Shape Models: Application to Computer Assisted Knee Surgery”, in MICCAI’98, p878–887, 1998Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. H. Hansen and B. Yu, “Model Selection and the Principle of Minimum Description Length”, Technical Memorandum, Bell Labs, Murray Hill, N.J. 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hill, A., A. Thornham and C.J. Taylor, “Model based interpretation of 3D medical images”, in British Machine Vision Conference, BMVC’93, p339–348, 1993Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joshi et. al, “Gaussian Random Fields on Sub-Manifolds for Characterizing Brain Surfaces”, in IPMI’97, p381–386, 1997Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelemen, A., G. Szekely, and G. Gerig, “Elastic model-based segmentation of 3-D neuroradiological data sets”. IEEE Transactions On Medical Imaging, 18(10): p. 828–839. 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kotcheff, A.C.W. and C.J. Taylor, ”Automatic Construction of Eigenshape Models by Direct Optimisation”. Medical Image Analysis, 2: p. 303–314. 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mardia, K. V., Statistics of Directional Data, Academic Press, London, 1972zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Press, W.H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C, Cambridge University Press; 1993Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rissanen, J. R. ”A universal prior for integers and estimation by minimum description length”, Annals of Statistics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 416–431, 1983.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rissanen, J. R. Stochastic Complexity in Statistical Inquiry, World Scientific Series in Computer Science, Vol. 15, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1989.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rissanen, J. R. “Fisher Information and Stochastic Complexity”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 40–47, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rueckert, D., Frangi, F., Schnabel, J.A., “Automatic construction of 3D statistical deformation models using non-rigid registration”, MICCAI’01 p77–84. 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shannon, C. E., “A mathematical theory of communication,”, Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, pp. 379–423 and 623-656, 1948.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szeleky, G., S. Lavalee, “Matching 3-D Anatomical Surface with Non-Rigid Deformations using Octree-Splines”, in International Journal of Computer Vision, 18(2), p171–186, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Tosun and J.L. Prince, “Hemispherical map for the human brain cortex,” Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging 2001, p 290–300. 2001.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang, Y., B. S. Peterson, and L. H. Staib. “Shape-based 3D surface correspondence using geodesics and local geometry”. CVPR 2000, v. 2: p. 644–51. 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rhodri H. Davies
    • 1
  • Carole J. Twining
    • 1
  • Tim F. Cootes
    • 1
  • John C. Waterton
    • 2
  • Chris J. Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Imaging ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.AstraZenecaMacclesfieldUK

Personalised recommendations