| Literature DB >> 26828487 |
Dat Tien Nguyen1, Kang Ryoung Park2.
Abstract
Gender information has many useful applications in computer vision systems, such as surveillance systems, counting the number of males and females in a shopping mall, accessing control systems in restricted areas, or any human-computer interaction system. In most previous studies, researchers attempted to recognize gender by using visible light images of the human face or body. However, shadow, illumination, and time of day greatly affect the performance of these methods. To overcome this problem, we propose a new gender recognition method based on the combination of visible light and thermal camera images of the human body. Experimental results, through various kinds of feature extraction and fusion methods, show that our approach is efficient for gender recognition through a comparison of recognition rates with conventional systems.Entities:
Keywords: gender recognition; thermal image; visible light image
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26828487 PMCID: PMC4801534 DOI: 10.3390/s16020156
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Summary of previous studies on image-based gender recognition.
| Category | Method | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fingerprint-based gender recognition | Using fingerprint image for gender recognition [ | High accuracy | Requires the cooperation of users. |
| Face-based gender recognition | Using human face for gender recognition [ | High accuracy | Requires the cooperation of users. |
| Body-based gender recognition | Using only visible images of human body for gender recognition [ | Does not require the cooperation of users. | Recognition accuracy is strongly affected by illumination conditions, body poses, the random appearance of image texture on body region such as clothes, accessories |
| Combining the visible and thermal images of human body using score level fusion using SVM for gender recognition ( | Does not require the cooperation of users. | Requires longer processing time than singly visible images. |
Figure 1Overall procedure for the proposed method.
Figure 2Feature level fusion approach for combining visible light and thermal images.
Figure 3Score level fusion approach for combining the visible light and thermal images.
Figure 4Structure of the dual visible-thermal camera used in our research.
Figure 5Example of visible and thermal images captured by our lab-made dual visible-thermal camera, and the results of human detection using Lee et al.’s method: (a) a visible light image; (b) a thermal image captured at the same time and same scene with the visible light image; the detection results with (c) the visible light image; and (d) the thermal image.
Figure 6Method for extracting the MLBP feature from an image.
Figure 7The distribution of illumination of images in our collected database: (a) illumination distribution of visible light images; and (b) illumination distribution of thermal images.
Description of visible light and thermal images database of the human body in our experiments.
| Database | Visible Database | Thermal Database | (Visible + Thermal) Database | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of persons | 103 | 103 | 103 | |
| Number of Images | 2926 | 2926 | 5852 | |
Description of learning and testing sub-databases.
| Database | Training Sub-Database | Testing Sub-Database | The Entire Database |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of persons | 83 | 20 | 103 |
Figure 8Examples of visible light and thermal image pairs in our collected database: (a) visible (left)—thermal (right) images of a male in front view; (b) visible (left)—thermal (right) images of a male in back view; (c) visible (left)—thermal (right) images of a female in front views and (d) visible (left)—thermal (right) images of a female in back view.
Accuracies of recognition system (EER, FAR vs. GAR) that uses only visible or thermal images of body for gender recognition (the values of GAR and FAR at the EER position are shown in bold-type) (unit: %).
| Methods | Linear Kernel | RBF Kernel | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EER | FAR | GAR | EER | FAR | GAR | ||
| Using only visible images for recognition | Using HoG feature | 19.639 | 10.000 | 58.099 | 10.000 | 62.758 | |
| 15.000 | 69.920 | 15.000 | 79.878 | ||||
| 20.000 | 80.440 | 20.000 | 88.051 | ||||
| 25.000 | 85.697 | 25.000 | 91.716 | ||||
| Using MLBP feature | 27.105 | 20.000 | 62.790 | 25.088 | 15.000 | 57.506 | |
| 25.000 | 69.676 | 20.000 | 66.359 | ||||
| 30.000 | 77.793 | 30.000 | 80.778 | ||||
| 35.000 | 81.359 | 35.000 | 86.088 | ||||
| Using only thermal images for recognition | Using HoG feature | 23.459 | 15.000 | 60.002 | 10.000 | 57.027 | |
| 20.000 | 67.192 | 15.000 | 65.791 | ||||
| 25.000 | 79.049 | 20.000 | 80.669 | ||||
| 30.000 | 83.499 | 25.000 | 89.815 | ||||
| Using MLBP feature | 24.002 | 15.000 | 61.901 | 20.572 | 10.000 | 55.929 | |
| 20.000 | 68.824 | 15.000 | 68.506 | ||||
| 25.000 | 76.771 | 25.000 | 85.236 | ||||
| 30.000 | 81.354 | 30.000 | 90.097 | ||||
Recognition accuracy (EER, FAR vs. GAR) of the recognition system using feature level fusion for combining visible and thermal images for gender recognition (the values of GAR and FAR at the EER position are shown in bold-type) (unit: %).
| Method | Linear Kernel | RBF Kernel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EER | FAR | GAR | EER | FAR | GAR | |
| Using HoG feature | 19.553 | 10.000 | 61.445 | 10.000 | 73.050 | |
| 15.000 | 70.169 | 15.000 | 80.534 | |||
| 20.000 | 80.790 | 20.000 | 89.341 | |||
| 25.000 | 84.764 | 25.000 | 92.250 | |||
| Using MLBP feature | 21.022 | 15.000 | 63.366 | 18.126 | 10.000 | 60.993 |
| 20.000 | 76.482 | 15.000 | 73.669 | |||
| 25.000 | 83.096 | 20.000 | 84.426 | |||
| 30.000 | 87.075 | 25.000 | 89.898 | |||
Recognition accuracy (EER, FAR vs. GAR) of the recognition system using score level fusion for combining visible and thermal images for gender recognition (the values of GAR and FAR at the EER position are shown in bold-type) (unit: %).
| Feature Extraction Method | The 1st SVM Kernel | The 2nd SVM Kernel | Recognition Accuracy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EER | FAR | GAR | |||
| Using HoG feature | Linear | Linear | 17.891 | 15.000 | 75.063 |
| 20.000 | 84.353 | ||||
| 25.000 | 88.862 | ||||
| RBF | 17.628 | 15.000 | 75.143 | ||
| 20.000 | 84.696 | ||||
| 25.000 | 89.035 | ||||
| RBF | Linear | 15.158 | 10.000 | 65.884 | |
| 15.000 | 83.988 | ||||
| 20.000 | 93.900 | ||||
| RBF | 10.000 | 71.395 | |||
| 15.000 | 85.410 | ||||
| 20.000 | 94.422 | ||||
| Using MLP feature | Linear | Linear | 20.835 | 15.000 | 71.802 |
| 20.000 | 76.199 | ||||
| 25.000 | 83.019 | ||||
| RBF | 20.755 | 15.000 | 63.043 | ||
| 20.000 | 76.298 | ||||
| 25.000 | 84.419 | ||||
| RBF | Linear | 17.857 | 10.000 | 59.592 | |
| 15.000 | 75.281 | ||||
| 20.000 | 85.796 | ||||
| RBF | 17.642 | 10.000 | 57.442 | ||
| 15.000 | 75.895 | ||||
| 20.000 | 86.253 | ||||
Summary of recognition accuracy (EER, FAR vs. GAR) using a single image type verses the combination of visible and thermal images (the values of GAR and FAR at the EER position are shown in bold-type) (unit: %).
| Visible Light Image (Conventional Method Using Single Visible Light Images) | Thermal Image (Conventional Method Using Single Thermal Images) | (Visible Light + Thermal) Images | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature Level Fusion | Score Level Fusion (Proposed Method) | ||||||||||
| EER | FAR | GAR | EER | FAR | GAR | EER | FAR | GAR | EER | FAR | GAR |
| 16.540 | 10.000 | 62.758 | 19.583 | 10.000 | 57.027 | 15.946 | 10.000 | 73.050 | 5.000 | 62.693 | |
| 15.000 | 79.878 | 15.000 | 65.791 | 15.000 | 80.534 | 10.000 | 71.395 | ||||
| 20.000 | 88.051 | 20.000 | 80.669 | 20.000 | 89.341 | 15.000 | 85.410 | ||||
| 25.000 | 91.716 | 25.000 | 89.815 | 25.000 | 92.250 | 20.000 | 94.422 | ||||
Figure 9The average ROC curve of recognition systems using different kinds of images.
Figure 10Examples of recognition result using our proposed method: (a) recognition result of a male; (b,c) recognition results of females.
Figure 11Examples of poor recognition results using our proposed method: (a) images with occlusion; (b) images with un-normal body-pose; and (c) images with poor quality.
Processing time of our proposed method (unit: ms).
| Human Body Detection | Feature Extraction Using HoG (Two Images) | Feature Dimension Reduction (PCA) (Two Images) | The 1st SVM Layer | The 2nd SVM Layer | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23.1300 | 1.6335 | 2.7548 | 0.0700 | 0.0065 | 27.5948 |
Figure 12Procedure of the experiments to evaluate the gender recognition ability of different body parts.
The gender recognition performance (EER, FAR vs. GAR) of different parts of human body using our proposed method (the values of GAR and FAR at the EER position are shown in bold-type) (unit: %).
| Body’s Part | Head Part | Main Body Part | Leg Part | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EER | FAR | GAR | EER | FAR | GAR | EER | FAR | GAR | |
| Using Visible Image | 18.238 | 10.000 | 65.670 | 25.788 | 20.000 | 64.472 | 25.175 | 20.000 | 66.787 |
| 15.000 | 75.548 | 25.000 | 73.242 | 25.000 | 74.298 | ||||
| 20.000 | 83.931 | 30.000 | 79.404 | 30.000 | 79.806 | ||||
| 25.000 | 88.913 | 35.000 | 85.630 | 35.000 | 84.513 | ||||
| Using Thermal Image | 22.779 | 15.000 | 66.376 | 26.845 | 20.000 | 62.066 | 27.414 | 20.000 | 61.674 |
| 20.000 | 71.566 | 25.000 | 69.666 | 25.000 | 69.402 | ||||
| 25.000 | 82.200 | 30.000 | 77.203 | 30.000 | 75.261 | ||||
| 30.000 | 87.841 | 35.000 | 83.998 | 35.000 | 78.912 | ||||
| 10.000 | 70.668 | 15.000 | 65.923 | 15.000 | 67.983 | ||||
| 15.000 | 83.506 | 20.000 | 76.988 | 20.000 | 73.893 | ||||
| 20.000 | 88.997 | 25.000 | 84.182 | 25.000 | 79.688 | ||||
| 25.000 | 92.181 | 30.000 | 88.564 | 30.000 | 84.863 | ||||