| Literature DB >> 30641923 |
Insuck Baek1,2, Dewi Kusumaningrum3, Lalit Mohan Kandpal4, Santosh Lohumi5, Changyeun Mo6, Moon S Kim7, Byoung-Kwan Cho8.
Abstract
Viability is an important quality factor influencing seed germination and crop yield. Current seed-viability testing methods rely on conventional manual inspections, which use destructive, labor-intensive and time-consuming measurements. The aim of this study is to distinguish between viable and nonviable soybean seeds, using a near-infrared (NIR) hyperspectral imaging (HSI) technique in a rapid and nondestructive manner. The data extracted from the NIR⁻HSI of viable and nonviable soybean seeds were analyzed using a partial least-squares discrimination analysis (PLS-DA) technique for classifying the viable and nonviable soybean seeds. Variable importance in projection (VIP) was used as a waveband selection method to develop a multispectral imaging model. Initially, the spectral profile of each pixel in the soybean seed images was subjected to PLS-DA analysis, which yielded a reasonable classification accuracy; however, the pixel-based classification method was not successful for high accuracy detection for nonviable seeds. Another viability detection method was then investigated: a kernel image threshold method with an optimum-detection-rate strategy. The kernel-based classification of seeds showed over 95% accuracy even when using only seven optimal wavebands selected through VIP. The results show that the proposed multispectral NIR imaging method is an effective and accurate nondestructive technique for the discrimination of soybean seed viability.Entities:
Keywords: kernel-based classification; multispectral imaging; near-infrared; seed viability; variable importance in projection
Year: 2019 PMID: 30641923 PMCID: PMC6359339 DOI: 10.3390/s19020271
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) Schematic representation of the SWIR-HSI system; (b) arrangement of soybean seeds on sample holder plate for HSI scanning.
Figure 2Hyperspectral band images of soybean seeds: (a) before and (b) after baseline correction and (c,d) showing average of corresponding pixel intensity.
Figure 3HSI data processing workflow used for viability determination of soybean seed samples.
Figure 4Average spectra of each soybean seeds in 1000–1800 nm.
Optimum number of latent variables and RMSECV explained by PLS-DA models with various preprocessing techniques.
| Preprocessing | Latent Variables | RMSECV |
|---|---|---|
| Raw | 14 | 0.312 |
| SNV | 12 | 0.304 |
| Max | 14 | 0.310 |
| Mean | 12 | 0.322 |
| Range | 14 | 0.303 |
| Smoothing | 17 | 0.312 |
Calibration and validation results based on pixels (unit: %) of PLS-DA model developed with different preprocessing methods using full wavelengths.
| Calibration ( | Raw | SNV | Max | Mean | Range | Smoothing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viable | 91.0 | 91.4 | 91.2 | 90.7 | 91.4 | 91.0 |
| Non-viable | 92.8 | 92.7 | 92.8 | 93.1 | 92.7 | 92.8 |
| Total | 91.9 | 92.1 | 92.0 | 91.9 | 92.1 | 91.9 |
|
| ||||||
| Viable | 89.0 | 89.4 | 89.1 | 88.6 | 89.4 | 89.0 |
| Non-viable | 94.6 | 94.8 | 94.9 | 95.1 | 94.7 | 94.6 |
| Total | 91.8 | 92.1 | 92.0 | 91.8 | 92.1 | 91.8 |
Figure 5Beta coefficient of the PLS-DA model using the original (raw) full wavelengths (B0 = 0.4533).
Figure 6(a) VIP score plot indicating the key wavelengths selected for model development with original raw spectrum and (b) indicate average spectrum data and selected wavelength with each pretreatment methods (yellow bar is common key wavelength).
Calibration and validation results on pixels (in percent) of PLS-DA VIP model with selected wavelengths.
| Calibration ( | Raw | SNV | Max | Mean | Range | Smoothing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viable | 82.8 | 87.1 | 83.2 | 84.9 | 80.2 | 85.9 |
| Non-viable | 84.7 | 88.8 | 86.5 | 89.2 | 79.5 | 88.1 |
| Total | 83.7 | 88.0 | 84.9 | 87.1 | 79.9 | 87.0 |
|
| ||||||
| Viable | 80.8 | 84.1 | 80.0 | 81.0 | 76.7 | 85.6 |
| Non-viable | 82.7 | 91.1 | 88.3 | 91.0 | 81.8 | 87.3 |
| Total | 81.8 | 87.6 | 84.1 | 86.1 | 79.3 | 84.5 |
Classification results for seed image using Optimum detection rates for each pretreatment method.
| PLS-DA with Full Wavelengths | Optimum Detection Rate (%) | AUC | Calibration ( | Validation ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viable Accuracy (%) | Non-Viable Accuracy (%) | Viable Accuracy (%) | Non-Viable Accuracy (%) | |||
| Raw | 71.3 | 0.9999 | 100 | 99.3 | 96.0 | 100 |
| SNV | 63.4 | 0.9999 | 100 | 99.3 | 98.0 | 100 |
| Max | 56.3 | 0.9999 | 100 | 99.3 | 98.0 | 100 |
| Mean | 49.4 | 0.9998 | 100 | 99.3 | 98.0 | 100 |
| Range | 63.0 | 0.9999 | 100 | 99.3 | 98.0 | 100 |
| Smoothing | 70.9 | 0.9999 | 100 | 99.3 | 98.0 | 100 |
|
| ||||||
| Raw | 52.0 | 0.9947 | 95.3 | 97.3 | 96.0 | 96.0 |
| SNV | 33.9 | 0.9992 | 100 | 98.0 | 96.0 | 98.0 |
| Max | 56.0 | 0.9941 | 94.7 | 97.3 | 96.0 | 98.0 |
| Mean | 43.1 | 0.9959 | 95.3 | 98.0 | 96.0 | 98.0 |
| Range | 49.7 | 0.9717 | 94.0 | 90.0 | 96.0 | 94.0 |
| Smoothing | 55.7 | 0.9996 | 99.3 | 98.7 | 98.0 | 100 |
Figure 7The resultant images by VIP PLS-DA model from raw data in the first row with 50% detection rate and in the second row with optimum detection rate. (Viable: red; non-viable: green.)
Figure 8Graphical representation of results of image-based classification of viability of soybean seeds in the calibration and validation sets of whole spectral data (a) and VIP-selected variables (b) using optimum detection rate.