| Literature DB >> 23202043 |
Norasyikin Fadilah1, Junita Mohamad-Saleh, Zaini Abdul Halim, Haidi Ibrahim, Syed Salim Syed Ali.
Abstract
Ripeness classification of oil palm fresh fruit bunches (FFBs) during harvesting is important to ensure that they are harvested during optimum stage for maximum oil production. This paper presents the application of color vision for automated ripeness classification of oil palm FFB. Images of oil palm FFBs of type DxP Yangambi were collected and analyzed using digital image processing techniques. Then the color features were extracted from those images and used as the inputs for Artificial Neural Network (ANN) learning. The performance of the ANN for ripeness classification of oil palm FFB was investigated using two methods: training ANN with full features and training ANN with reduced features based on the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) data reduction technique. Results showed that compared with using full features in ANN, using the ANN trained with reduced features can improve the classification accuracy by 1.66% and is more effective in developing an automated ripeness classifier for oil palm FFB. The developed ripeness classifier can act as a sensor in determining the correct oil palm FFB ripeness category.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23202043 PMCID: PMC3545614 DOI: 10.3390/s121014179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Oil palm FFB grading system.
Figure 2.Oil palm FFB images for four ripeness categories: (a) Unripe; (b) Underripe; (c) Ripe; (d) Overripe.
Figure 3.Segmented images of oil palm FFB's (a) fruits and (b) spikes.
Figure 4.Structure of MLP neural network.
Properties of each investigated MLP neural network.
| CA | logsig | logsig | 4 |
| CB | tansig | logsig | 4 |
| CC | logsig | logsig | 2 |
| CD | tansig | logsig | 2 |
| CE | logsig | purelin | 1 |
| CF | tansig | purelin | 1 |
Output coding representations for CA and CB combinations.
| Unripe | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Underripe | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Ripe | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Overripe | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Output coding representations for CE and CF combinations.
| Unripe | 1 |
| Underripe | 2 |
| Ripe | 3 |
| Overripe | 4 |
Figure 5.Two experimented methods. (a) Method MA; (b) Method MB.
Total variation with its corresponding number of PCs.
| Total variation | 0.2 | 0.0482 | 0.06 | 0.0014 | 0.00031 | 0.00019 | 0.000123 |
| Number of PCs | 2 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 |
| Total variation | 0.00008 | 0.000046 | 0.00003 | 0.000017 | 0.000008 | ||
| Number of PCs | 35 | 40 | 45 | 50 | 55 |
Oil palm FFB ripeness classification accuracy for method MA.
| CA | 88.33 |
| CB | 88.33 |
| CC | |
| CD | 90.00 |
| CE | 85.00 |
| CF | 86.67 |
Oil palm FFB ripeness classification accuracy for method MB.
| CA | 65.00 | 86.67 | 88.33 | 85.00 | 80.00 | 78.33 | 78.33 | 75.00 | 75.00 | 66.67 | 73.33 | 60.00 |
| CB | 66.67 | 90.00 | 86.67 | 85.00 | 83.33 | 80.00 | 73.33 | 71.67 | 70.00 | 71.67 | 63.33 | 56.67 |
| CC | 78.33 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 81.67 | 83.33 | 80.00 | 75.00 | 71.67 | 68.33 | 65.00 | 60.00 | |
| CD | 80.00 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 86.67 | 81.67 | 81.67 | 76.67 | 68.33 | 70.00 | 68.33 | 65.00 | 66.67 |
| CE | 78.33 | 86.67 | 81.67 | 83.33 | 80.00 | 76.67 | 76.67 | 71.67 | 70.00 | 65.00 | 65.00 | 66.67 |
| CF | 78.33 | 88.33 | 86.67 | 81.67 | 78.33 | 75.00 | 71.67 | 68.33 | 70.00 | 65.00 | 65.00 | 63.33 |
Figure 6.MLP performance based on number of features.
Oil palm FFB ripeness classification accuracy for method MB (5–15 PCs).
| CA | 86.67 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 88.33 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 86.67 | 86.67 | 90.00 | 90.00 | 85.00 |
| CB | 90.00 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 86.67 | 88.33 | 86.67 | 86.67 | 90.00 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 85.00 |
| CC | 91.67 | 91.67 | 91.67 | 88.33 | 90.00 | 90.00 | 90.00 | 91.67 | 91.67 | 88.33 | 88.33 |
| CD | 90.00 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 90.00 | 88.33 | 88.33 | 86.67 | ||
| CE | 86.67 | 86.67 | 85.00 | 86.67 | 86.67 | 81.67 | 85.00 | 81.67 | 85.00 | 85.00 | 83.33 |
| CF | 88.33 | 86.67 | 88.33 | 88.33 | 88.33 | 86.67 | 81.67 | 83.33 | 86.67 | 85.00 | 81.67 |
Figure 7.MLP performance based on number of features (5–15 PCs).
Output coding representations for CC and CD combinations.
| Unripe | 0 | 0 | |
| Underripe | 0 | 1 | |
| Ripe | 1 | 0 | |
| Overripe | 1 | 1 | |