Skip to main content

Comparative Evaluation of Interactive Segmentation Approaches

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Informatik aktuell ((INFORMAT))

Abstract

Image segmentation is a key technique in image processing with the goal to extract important objects from the image. This evaluation study focuses on the segmentation quality of three different interactive segmentation techniques, namely Region Growing (RG), Watershed (WS) and the cellular automaton based GrowCut (GC) algorithm. Three different evaluation measures are computed to compare the segmentation quality of each algorithm: Rand Index (RI), Mutual Information (MI), and the Dice Coefficient (D). For the images in the publicly available ground truth data base utilized for the evaluation, the GrowCut method has a slight advantage over the other two. The presented results provide insight into the performance and the characteristics with respect to the image quality of each tested algorithm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Spina TV, Falc˜ao AX, Miranda PAV. User-steered image segmentation using live markers. Comput Anal Images Patterns. 2011; p. 211–8.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beucher S, et al. The watershed transformation applied to image segmentation. Scanning Microsc Suppl. 1992; p. 299.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Adams R, Bischof L. Seeded region growing. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1994;16(6):641–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vezhnevets V, Konouchine V. GrowCut: interactive multi-label ND image segmentation by cellular automata. Proc Graphicon. 2005; p. 150–6.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beare R, Lehmann G., The watershed transform in ITK-discussion and new developments. Insight J. 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rother C, Kolmogorov V, Blake A. Grabcut: Interactive foreground extraction using iterated graph cuts. ACM Trans Graph. 2004;23(3):309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rand WM. Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. J Am Stat Assoc. 1971;66(336):846–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Russakoff DB, Tomasi C, Rohlfing T, et al. Image similarity using mutual information of regions. Proc ECCV. 2004; p. 596–607.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dice LR. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology. 1945;26(3):297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rodt T, von Falck C, Halter R, et al. Mikro-CT basierte region growing segmentation zur verlaufsbeurteilung des multifokalen adenocarcinoms der lunge in SPC-raf transgenen m¨ausen. Rofo. 2010;182:WI PO5.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Amrehn, M., Glasbrenner, J., Steidl, S., Maier, A. (2016). Comparative Evaluation of Interactive Segmentation Approaches. In: Tolxdorff, T., Deserno, T., Handels, H., Meinzer, HP. (eds) Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2016. Informatik aktuell. Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49465-3_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics