| Literature DB >> 36005462 |
Haowen Hu1, Ryo Hachiuma1, Hideo Saito1, Yoshifumi Takatsume2, Hiroki Kajita3.
Abstract
Multi-camera multi-person (MCMP) tracking and re-identification (ReID) are essential tasks in safety, pedestrian analysis, and so on; however, most research focuses on outdoor scenarios because they are much more complicated to deal with occlusions and misidentification in a crowded room with obstacles. Moreover, it is challenging to complete the two tasks in one framework. We present a trajectory-based method, integrating tracking and ReID tasks. First, the poses of all surgical members captured by each camera are detected frame-by-frame; then, the detected poses are exploited to track the trajectories of all members for each camera; finally, these trajectories of different cameras are clustered to re-identify the members in the operating room across all cameras. Compared to other MCMP tracking and ReID methods, the proposed one mainly exploits trajectories, taking texture features that are less distinguishable in the operating room scenario as auxiliary cues. We also integrate temporal information during ReID, which is more reliable than the state-of-the-art framework where ReID is conducted frame-by-frame. In addition, our framework requires no training before deployment in new scenarios. We also created an annotated MCMP dataset with actual operating room videos. Our experiments prove the effectiveness of the proposed trajectory-based ReID algorithm. The proposed framework achieves 85.44% accuracy in the ReID task, outperforming the state-of-the-art framework in our operating room dataset.Entities:
Keywords: human re-identification; multi-camera multi-person; operating room; pedestrian tracking; trajectory
Year: 2022 PMID: 36005462 PMCID: PMC9410347 DOI: 10.3390/jimaging8080219
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Imaging ISSN: 2313-433X
Figure 1Operating room.
Figure 2Method flow of the proposed framework.
Figure 3The 3D trajectories of different cameras (separately). The colors in each sub-figure differ among IDs.
and of different cameras.
| Camera | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 74.64 | 87.02 | 92.43 | 87.34 | |
| 79.19 | 80.44 | 100.00 | 79.22 |
Figure 4The 3D trajectories of different cameras. The colors differ among IDs.
(%) corresponding to different sets of key parameters.
|
| 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 40 | 78.71 | 81.53 | 77.85 | 77.85 | 77.85 | |
| 80 | 79.16 | 82.54 | 79.15 | 77.12 | 76.51 | |
| 120 | 79.16 |
| 81.61 | 77.68 | 77.85 | |
| 160 | 80.25 | 82.62 | 78.91 | 76.14 | 77.93 | |
| 200 | 75.69 | 78.93 | 75.86 | 74.70 | 74.76 | |
of the proposed ReID method and state-of-the-art method.
| Method | Ours | Lima’s |
|---|---|---|
| 85.44 | 77.56 |
Figure 5The 2D Comparison of the label, our and Lima’s methods (unit: cm). The colors differ among IDs.
Figure 6Estimated poses of corresponding bounding boxes. The green poses and bounding boxes represent those being filtered out, and the red ones represent those being kept.
Figure 7Pictures captured by different cameras with human IDs.