| Literature DB >> 35206124 |
Emrah Aydemir1, Mehmet Ali Yalcinkaya2, Prabal Datta Barua3,4,5, Mehmet Baygin6, Oliver Faust7, Sengul Dogan8, Subrata Chakraborty9,10, Turker Tuncer8, U Rajendra Acharya11,12,13.
Abstract
Mask usage is one of the most important precautions to limit the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, hygiene rules enforce the correct use of face coverings. Automated mask usage classification might be used to improve compliance monitoring. This study deals with the problem of inappropriate mask use. To address that problem, 2075 face mask usage images were collected. The individual images were labeled as either mask, no masked, or improper mask. Based on these labels, the following three cases were created: Case 1: mask versus no mask versus improper mask, Case 2: mask versus no mask + improper mask, and Case 3: mask versus no mask. This data was used to train and test a hybrid deep feature-based masked face classification model. The presented method comprises of three primary stages: (i) pre-trained ResNet101 and DenseNet201 were used as feature generators; each of these generators extracted 1000 features from an image; (ii) the most discriminative features were selected using an improved RelieF selector; and (iii) the chosen features were used to train and test a support vector machine classifier. That resulting model attained 95.95%, 97.49%, and 100.0% classification accuracy rates on Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3, respectively. Having achieved these high accuracy values indicates that the proposed model is fit for a practical trial to detect appropriate face mask use in real time.Entities:
Keywords: DenseNet201; ResNet101; face mask detection; hybrid feature selector; support vector machine; transfer learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35206124 PMCID: PMC8871993 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19041939
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Summary of current studies conducted on face mask detection.
| Study | Method | Dataset | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nieto-Rodríguez et al. [ | Mixture of Gaussians | LFW [ | 95.00 |
| Ejaz et al. [ | Principal Component Analysis | ORL [ | 72.00 |
| Qin and Li [ | Super-resolution with classification network | MMD [ | 98.70 |
| Li et al. [ | You Only Look Once (YOLOv3) | CelebA [ | 93.90 |
| Hussain et al. [ | Convolution Neural Networks | KDEF [ | 88.00 |
| Loey et al. [ | Convolution Neural Networks, Support Vector Machine | RMFD [ | 100.00 |
| Loey et al. [ | Convolution Neural Networks, You Only Look Once (YOLOv2) | MMD [ | 81.00 |
| Chowdary et al. [ | Convolution Neural Networks | SMFD [ | 100 |
| Roy et al. [ | You Only Look Once (YOLOv3) | Moxa3K [ | 63.00 |
| Mohan et al. [ | Convolution Neural Networks, | FMD [ | 99.83 |
| Bhadani and Sinha [ | Deep Neural Networks, Principal Component Analysis | Collected Data | 95.67 |
Figure 1Illustration of the proposed hybrid deep features and TRFIRF-based face mask detection model.
Figure 2Sample images from the three classes in the dataset: (a) mask images, (b) no mask images, (c) improper mask images.
Amount of class specific data within the dataset.
| Classes | Number of Face Images |
|---|---|
| Mask | 992 |
| No masked | 554 |
| Improper masked | 529 |
| Total | 2075 |
Figure 3ResNet101 and DenseNet201 deep network architectures.
Figure 4Snapshot of the presented TRFIRF model. In this model, ReliefF is applied two times.
Figure 5Test cases used in the study.
Summary of overall performance (%) obtained for the three cases.
| Performance Measures | Case 1 | Case 2 | Case 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | 95.95 | 97.49 | 100.0 |
| AP (%) | 95.56 | 97.47 | 100.0 |
| UAR (%) | 95.36 | 97.51 | 100.0 |
| MCC (%) | 93.42 | 94.98 | 100.0 |
| F1-score (%) | 95.45 | 97.49 | 100.0 |
| CK (%) | 93.62 | 94.98 | 100.0 |
| GM (%) | 95.31 | 97.51 | 100.0 |
Figure 6Confusion matrices resulting from training and testing the model with the three different cases: (a) Case 1, (b) Case 2, and (c) Case 3.
Figure 7Accuracy (%) versus each fold of ten-fold cross-validation for the Cases 1 and 2.
Accuracy results obtained using various transfer learning models with our face mask image dataset. These results were obtained for Case 1.
| Number | CNN | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | ResNet101 [ | 93.83 |
| 2 | DenseNet201 [ | 93.54 |
| 3 | InceptionResNetv2 [ | 92.72 |
| 4 | Inceptionv3 [ | 92.43 |
| 5 | ResNet50 [ | 92.34 |
| 6 | SqueezeNet [ | 91.90 |
| 7 | MobileNetv2 [ | 91.04 |
| 8 | GoogLeNet [ | 90.89 |
| 9 | ResNet18 [ | 90.70 |
| 10 | VGG19 [ | 90.51 |
| 11 | AlexNet [ | 89.93 |
| 12 | VGG16 [ | 89.88 |
Figure 8Graph of loss value versus number of features using TRFIRF selector for Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3.
The properties of MaskedFace-Net dataset.
| Classes | Number of Face Images |
|---|---|
| Correctly Masked Face Dataset (CMFD) | 67,049 |
| Incorrectly Masked Face Dataset (IMFD) | 66,734 |
| Total | 133,783 |
Figure 9Mask sensitive automatic door.