| Literature DB >> 34067562 |
Zhitao Wang1,2, Chunlei Xia2, Jangmyung Lee1.
Abstract
A parallel fish school tracking based on multiple-feature fish detection has been proposed in this paper to obtain accurate movement trajectories of a large number of zebrafish. Zebrafish are widely adapted in many fields as an excellent model organism. Due to the non-rigid body, similar appearance, rapid transition, and frequent occlusions, vision-based behavioral monitoring is still a challenge. A multiple appearance feature based fish detection scheme was developed by examining the fish head and center of the fish body based on shape index features. The proposed fish detection has the advantage of locating individual fishes from occlusions and estimating their motion states, which could ensure the stability of tracking multiple fishes. Moreover, a parallel tracking scheme was developed based on the SORT framework by fusing multiple features of individual fish and motion states. The proposed method was evaluated in seven video clips taken under different conditions. These videos contained various scales of fishes, different arena sizes, different frame rates, and various image resolutions. The maximal number of tracking targets reached 100 individuals. The correct tracking ratio was 98.60% to 99.86%, and the correct identification ratio ranged from 97.73% to 100%. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method is superior to advanced deep learning-based methods. Nevertheless, this method has real-time tracking ability, which can acquire online trajectory data without high-cost hardware configuration.Entities:
Keywords: Kalman filter; SORT; clustering; shape index; zebrafish
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34067562 PMCID: PMC8156864 DOI: 10.3390/s21103476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Flow chart of the proposed tracking scheme.
Figure 2Fish segmentation process, (a) original image, (b) background image, (c) differential image, (d) blob detection and bounding boxes.
Figure 3Shape index results image produced by Gaussian kernels with different σ values and the definition of shape index categories.
Figure 4(a) Blob image, (b) head, (c) motion state, (d) body point.
Figure 5Flow chart of head tracking loop.
Figure 6Flow chart of body tracking loop.
Figure 7Observation system setup.
Description of experimental datasets.
| Dataset | Total Length (Frame) | Frame Rate per Second (FPS) | Image Resolution (Pixel) | Number of Fish | Individual Size (Pixel) | Frequency of Occlusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 240 | 60 | 2592 × 2048 | 5 | 6500–9800 | 95 |
| D2 | 300 | 60 | 2592 × 2048 | 5 | 7000–9800 | 279 |
| D3 | 300 | 100 | 2040 × 2048 | 10 | 4000–6000 | 198 |
| D4 | 200 | 100 | 2040 × 2080 | 20 | 2700–6400 | 546 |
| D5 | 500 | 32 | 1920 × 1080 | 8 | 320–480 | 198 |
| D6 | 500 | 32 | 3712 × 3712 | 10 | 450–700 | 277 |
| D7 | 200 | 32 | 3584 × 3500 | 100 | 240–560 | 220 |
Performance analysis of the proposed fish detection method.
| Dataset | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | Occlusion Rates (%) | Detection Rate from Occlusions (%) | Computational Time per Frame (ms) | Frame Rate of Detection (FPS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 100.00 | 99.75 | 7.92 | 97.89 | 58.83 | 17.00 |
| D2 | 98.62 | 99.87 | 18.60 | 99.28 | 67.43 | 14.83 |
| D3 | 99.80 | 99.57 | 6.60 | 93.43 | 65.87 | 15.18 |
| D4 | 99.78 | 99.78 | 13.65 | 98.35 | 170.80 | 5.85 |
| D5 | 99.73 | 99.85 | 4.95 | 96.97 | 12.68 | 78.86 |
| D6 | 99.98 | 99.86 | 5.54 | 97.47 | 24.38 | 41.02 |
| D7 | 99.99 | 99.99 | 1.10 | 99.09 | 173.45 | 5.77 |
| Average | 99.70 | 99.81 | 8.34 | 97.50 | 58.83 | 25.50 |
Tracking performance analysis of the proposed tracking scheme.
| Dataset | CTR (%) | CIR (%) | IDS | Occlusion Rates (%) | Data Association Time per Frame (ms) | Overall Tracking Time per Frame (ms) | Frame Rate of Tracking (FPS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 99.42 | 100.00 | 0 | 7.92 | 0.75 | 59.58 | 16.58 |
| D2 | 99.33 | 100.00 | 0 | 18.60 | 0.67 | 68.10 | 14.54 |
| D3 | 99.17 | 100.00 | 0 | 6.60 | 1.27 | 67.14 | 14.62 |
| D4 | 98.60 | 100.00 | 0 | 13.65 | 2.25 | 173.05 | 5.70 |
| D5 | 99.33 | 99.49 | 1 | 4.95 | 1.08 | 13.76 | 67.39 |
| D6 | 99.06 | 98.92 | 3 | 5.54 | 1.28 | 25.66 | 37.12 |
| D7 | 99.86 | 97.73 | 5 | 1.10 | 10.65 | 184.10 | 5.13 |
| Average | 99.25 | 99.45 | / | 8.34 | 2.56 | 84.48 | 23.01 |
Comparison results with IDTracker.ai (The best results are presented in bold font).
| Datasets | CTR (%) | CIR (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proposed | IDTracker.ai | Proposed | IDTracker.ai | |
| D1 |
| 96.92 |
| 97.89 |
| D2 |
| 97.53 |
| 98.57 |
| D3 |
| 93.37 |
| 98.99 |
| D4 |
| 88.63 |
| 99.27 |
| D5 | 99.33 |
| 99.49 |
|
| D6 | 99.06 |
|
| 98.56 |
| D7 |
| 99.69 |
| 96.82 |
| Average |
| 96.51 |
| 98.59 |