| Literature DB >> 26504460 |
Xuan Li1, Yong Dou1, Xin Niu1, Jiaqing Xu1, Ruorong Xiao2.
Abstract
Eye localization is a fundamental process in many facial analyses. In practical use, it is often challenged by illumination, head pose, facial expression, occlusion, and other factors. It remains great difficulty to achieve high accuracy with short prediction time and low training cost at the same time. This paper presents a novel eye localization approach which explores only one-layer convolution map by eye template using a BP network. Results showed that the proposed method is robust to handle many difficult situations. In experiments, accuracy of 98% and 96%, respectively, on the BioID and LFPW test sets could be achieved in 10 fps prediction rate with only 15-minute training cost. In comparison with other robust models, the proposed method could obtain similar best results with greatly reduced training time and high prediction speed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26504460 PMCID: PMC4609417 DOI: 10.1155/2015/709072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Eye localization result using our method.
Figure 2Convolution responses for different facial objects.
Figure 3Architecture of the proposed eye localization model.
Figure 4Multieye template set.
Figure 5The process of the FFT-based convolution.
Figure 6The structure of the two-level cascade enhancement.
Accuracies of the involved schemes.
| Method | BioID | LFPW | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right eye | Left eye | Right eye | Left eye | |
| M1 | 95.7% | 96.6% | 95.5% | 95.4% |
| M2 | 96.8% | 96.1% | 94.7% | 94.8% |
| M3 | 96.7% | 96.8% | 96.1% | 95.8% |
| M4 | 94.2% | 94.8% | 93.2% | 92.7% |
| Standard |
|
|
|
|
Figure 7Comparison between the original convolution and the FFT-Based approach.
Comparison of accuracies among the state-of-the-art eye localization approaches. Note the robust algorithms with high accuracies on LFPW.
| Method | Accuracy | Mean error | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BioID | LFPW | BioID | LFPW | |||||
| Right eye | Left eye | Right eye | Left eye | Right eye | Left eye | Right eye | Left eye | |
| Our method | 98.1% | 98.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Deep CNN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ASEF | 1.2% | 0.2% | 2.4% | 0.6% | 121.4% | 88% | 81.2% | 99.2% |
| nu-SVR | 96.1% | 95.9% | 92.8% | 92.8% | 4.2% | 4.1% | 4.9% | 4.9% |
| BORMAN | 79.1% | 75.8% | 78.2% | 92.8% | 7.1% | 7.8% | 7.8% | 8.8% |
| CBDS | 97.7% |
| 87.9% | 91.9% | 4.1% | 3.9% | 7.2% | 7% |
| LUXAND |
| 98.66% | 95.6% | 96.8% | 4.1% | 3.7% | 5.6% | 4.5% |
Prediction rates of the texture based approaches.
| Method | ASEF | nu-SVR | Deep CNN | Our method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| fps | 66.7 | 0.82 | 8.3 | 10.5 |