| Literature DB >> 27763555 |
Yingwang Gao1, Jinfeng Geng2, Xiuqin Rao3,4, Yibin Ying5,6.
Abstract
Skinning injury on potato tubers is a kind of superficial wound that is generally inflicted by mechanical forces during harvest and postharvest handling operations. Though skinning injury is pervasive and obstructive, its detection is very limited. This study attempted to identify injured skin using two CCD (Charge Coupled Device) sensor-based machine vision technologies, i.e., visible imaging and biospeckle imaging. The identification of skinning injury was realized via exploiting features extracted from varied ROIs (Region of Interests). The features extracted from visible images were pixel-wise color and texture features, while region-wise BA (Biospeckle Activity) was calculated from biospeckle imaging. In addition, the calculation of BA using varied numbers of speckle patterns were compared. Finally, extracted features were implemented into classifiers of LS-SVM (Least Square Support Vector Machine) and BLR (Binary Logistic Regression), respectively. Results showed that color features performed better than texture features in classifying sound skin and injured skin, especially for injured skin stored no less than 1 day, with the average classification accuracy of 90%. Image capturing and processing efficiency can be speeded up in biospeckle imaging, with captured 512 frames reduced to 125 frames. Classification results obtained based on the feature of BA were acceptable for early skinning injury stored within 1 day, with the accuracy of 88.10%. It is concluded that skinning injury can be recognized by visible and biospeckle imaging during different stages. Visible imaging has the aptitude in recognizing stale skinning injury, while fresh injury can be discriminated by biospeckle imaging.Entities:
Keywords: biospeckle imaging; potato; recognition; skinning injury; visible imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27763555 PMCID: PMC5087519 DOI: 10.3390/s16101734
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Representative image of skinning injury on potato (SS: sound skin; IS: injured skin).
Figure 2Experimental setup for visible imaging.
Figure 3Experimental setup for biospeckle imaging.
Color and texture features used in visible imaging.
| Category | Number of Features | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Color | RGB | 6 | Mean values and standard deviations of three color channels of RGB |
| Texture | GLCM | 8 | Mean values and standard deviations of ASM (Angular Second Moment), ENT (Entropy), INE (Inertia) and COR (Correlation) |
| Gabor | 108 | Twelve filters with 3 scales and 4 orientations, with one image divided into 3 × 3 image blocks | |
| DT-CWT | 12 | Real and imaginary images at approximately ±15°, ±45° and ±75°, respectively | |
Figure 4Flow chart of THSP formation (THSP: Time History of the Speckle Pattern).
Figure 5RGB images of potato tubers before and after skinning injury (0 indicates tubers before skinning injury).
Variation of image contrast with the elapse of time.
| 1 h | 12 h | 1 d | 3 d | 7 d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −13.064 ± 5.429 d | 18.832 ± 3.965 c | 30.943 ± 4.464 a,b | 37.436 ± 4.882 a | 28.983 ± 3.249 b |
* Indicates significant differences when with different letters (a, b, c, d) (p < 0.05).
Figure 6Classification results based on color and texture features, where * indicates significant difference (p < 0.05) compared with 1 h.
Figure 7BA variation with time and comparison among different time spans.
BA variation with the elapse of time.
| 0 | 1 h | 1 d | 3 d | 5 d | 7 d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean value * | 2421.08 ± 115.323 b,c | 3903.28 ± 390.157 a | 2771.88 ± 82.416 b | 2647.68 ± 114.337 b | 2753.90 ± 129.702 b | 2196.21 ± 192.280 c |
* Indicates significant differences when with different letters (a, b, c) (p < 0.05).
Correlation analysis between 10 s and other time spans.
| 0 | 1 h | 1 d | 3 d | 5 d | 7 d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 s | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 20 s | 0.968 * | 0.931 * | 0.926 * | 0.956 * | 0.963 * | 0.960 * |
| 30 s | 0.966 * | 0.915 * | 0.897 * | 0.957 * | 0.956 * | 0.938 * |
| 40 s | 0.965 * | 0.928 * | 0.921 * | 0.949 * | 0.959 * | 0.948 * |
* Indicates significant correlation (p < 0.05).
Figure 8Classification of sound skin and injured skin by BLR.
ANOVA between 1 h and 1 d on two techniques.
| 1 h | 1 d | 1 h | 1 d | |
| 75% | 88.33% | 88.1% | 53.8% | |
| 8.930 | 19.044 | |||
| 0.024 | 0.005 | |||
Figure 9Schematic diagram of closing layer formation after skinning injury.