4.7 Article

Evaluating spatiotemporal interest point features for depth-based action recognition

期刊

IMAGE AND VISION COMPUTING
卷 32, 期 8, 页码 453-464

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.imavis.2014.04.005

关键词

Action recognition; Spatiotemporal interest point (STIP); Detectors; Descriptors; STIP features; RGB-D sensor; Evaluation; STIP feature refinement; Feature fusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human action recognition has lots of real-world applications, such as natural user interface, virtual reality, intelligent surveillance, and gaming. However, it is still a very challenging problem. In action recognition using the visible light videos, the spatiotemporal interest point (STIP) based features are widely used with good performance. Recently, with the advance of depth imaging technology, a new modality has appeared for human action recognition. It is important to assess the performance and usefulness of the STIP features for action analysis on the new modality of 3D depth map. In this paper, we evaluate the spatiotemporal interest point (STIP) based features for depth-based action recognition. Different interest point detectors and descriptors are combined to form various STIP features. The bag-of-words representation and the SVM classifiers are used for action learning. Our comprehensive evaluation is conducted on four challenging 3D depth databases. Further, we use two schemes to refine the STIP features, one is to detect the interest points in RGB videos and apply to the aligned depth sequences, and the other is to use the human skeleton to remove irrelevant interest points. These refinements can help us have a deeper understanding of the STIP features on 3D depth data. Finally, we investigate a fusion of the best STIP features with the prevalent skeleton features, to present a complementary use of the STIP features for action recognition on 3D data. The fusion approach gives significantly higher accuracies than many state-of-the-art results. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据