4.6 Article

Keypoint Detection for Injury Identification during Turkey Husbandry Using Neural Networks

期刊

SENSORS
卷 22, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22145188

关键词

turkeys; keypoint detection; crowded dataset; pose estimation; injury location; animal welfare

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [491094227]
  2. University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aims to develop a camera-based system for monitoring turkey flocks and detecting injuries using neural networks. Key point detection model was applied to annotate 244 turkey images and combined with a segmentation model for injury detection. Key point detection showed good results in clearly differentiating individual animals even in crowded situations.
Injurious pecking against conspecifics is a serious problem in turkey husbandry. Bloody injuries act as a trigger mechanism to induce further pecking, and timely detection and intervention can prevent massive animal welfare impairments and costly losses. Thus, the overarching aim is to develop a camera-based system to monitor the flock and detect injuries using neural networks. In a preliminary study, images of turkeys were annotated by labelling potential injuries. These were used to train a network for injury detection. Here, we applied a keypoint detection model to provide more information on animal position and indicate injury location. Therefore, seven turkey keypoints were defined, and 244 images (showing 7660 birds) were manually annotated. Two state-of-the-art approaches for pose estimation were adjusted, and their results were compared. Subsequently, a better keypoint detection model (HRNet-W48) was combined with the segmentation model for injury detection. For example, individual injuries were classified using near tail or near head labels. Summarizing, the keypoint detection showed good results and could clearly differentiate between individual animals even in crowded situations.

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

4.6
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