| Literature DB >> 22368486 |
Young-Sook Lee1, Wan-Young Chung.
Abstract
Vision-based abnormal event detection for home healthcare systems can be greatly improved using visual sensor-based techniques able to detect, track and recognize objects in the scene. However, in moving object detection and tracking processes, moving cast shadows can be misclassified as part of objects or moving objects. Shadow removal is an essential step for developing video surveillance systems. The goal of the primary is to design novel computer vision techniques that can extract objects more accurately and discriminate between abnormal and normal activities. To improve the accuracy of object detection and tracking, our proposed shadow removal algorithm is employed. Abnormal event detection based on visual sensor by using shape features variation and 3-D trajectory is presented to overcome the low fall detection rate. The experimental results showed that the success rate of detecting abnormal events was 97% with a false positive rate of 2%. Our proposed algorithm can allow distinguishing diverse fall activities such as forward falls, backward falls, and falling asides from normal activities.Entities:
Keywords: abnormal event detection; shape features variation, shadow removal algorithm; ubiquitous healthcare surveillance; visual sensor
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22368486 PMCID: PMC3279230 DOI: 10.3390/s120100573
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Segmentation results for image sequence “intelligent room”: (a) Original images; (b) Segmentation results with FSD using our shadow removal algorithm; (c) Segmentation results with FSD and SSD using our shadow removal algorithm; (d) Results of object detection.
Figure 2.Results of abnormal event detection: (a) Original image; (b) Depth image corresponding to (a); (c) Result with UFED1 (not detected); (d) Result with a combination of UFED1 and UFED2 (detected).
Figure 3.Variations in the MBR ratio: (a) Backward fall; (b) Forward fall; (c) Falling to the left; (d) Falling to the right; (e) Crouching down and standing up; (f) Standing; (g) Walking.
Figure 4.Variations of 2-D vertical velocity during different human activities: (a) Backward fall; (b) Forward fall; (c) Falling to the left; (d) Falling to the right; (e) Crouching down and standing up; (f) Standing; (g) Walking.
Figure 5.Variations of 3-D centroids for the example shown in Figure 2 during different human activities: (a) Walking; (b) Standing; (c) Backward fall.
Experimental results with our test videos.
| True Positive: 50 | False Positive: 2 | |
| False Negative: 3 | True Negative: 120 |
System performance summary.
| Sensitivity | 94% |
| Specificity | 98% |
| False positive rate | 2% |
| Accuracy | 97% |