More Like this

1. Wildland Fire Detection and Monitoring Using a Drone-Collected RGB/IR Image Dataset

   Chen, Xiwen and ( January 2022 , IEEE Access)

   Current forest monitoring technologies including satellite remote sensing, manned/piloted aircraft, and observation towers leave uncertainties about a wildfire’s extent, behavior, and conditions in the fire’s near environment, particularly during its early growth. Rapid mapping and real-time fire monitoring can inform in-time intervention or management solutions to maximize beneficial fire outcomes. Drone systems’ unique features of 3D mobility, low flight altitude, and fast and easy deployment make them a valuable tool for early detection and assessment of wildland fires, especially in remote forests that are not easily accessible by ground vehicles. In addition, the lack of abundant, well-annotated aerial datasets – in part due to unmanned aerial vehicles’ (UAVs’) flight restrictions during prescribed burns and wildfires – has limited research advances in reliable data-driven fire detection and modeling techniques. While existing wildland fire datasets often include either color or thermal fire images, here we present (1) a multi-modal UAV-collected dataset of dual-feed side-by-side videos including both RGB and thermal images of a prescribed fire in an open canopy pine forest in Northern Arizona and (2) a deep learning-based methodology for detecting fire and smoke pixels at accuracy much higher than the usual single-channel video feeds. The collected images are labeled to “fire” or “no-fire” frames by two human experts using side-by-side RGB and thermal images to determine the label. To provide context to the main dataset’s aerial imagery, the included supplementary dataset provides a georeferenced pre-burn point cloud, an RGB orthomosaic, weather information, a burn plan, and other burn information. By using and expanding on this guide dataset, research can develop new data-driven fire detection, fire segmentation, and fire modeling techniques. 

   more » « less
2. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less
3. MOVES: Manipulated Objects in Video Enable Segmentation

   Higgins, Richard E.L. ; Fouhey, David F. ( June 2023 , CVPR)

   Our method uses manipulation in video to learn to understand held-objects and hand-object contact. We train a system that takes a single RGB image and produces a pixel-embedding that can be used to answer grouping questions (do these two pixels go together) as well as hand-association questions (is this hand holding that pixel). Rather than painstakingly annotate segmentation masks, we observe people in realistic video data. We show that pairing epipolar geometry with modern optical flow produces simple and effective pseudo-labels for grouping. Given people segmentations, we can further associate pixels with hands to understand contact. Our system achieves competitive results on hand and hand-held object tasks. 

   more » « less
4. Incremental scene understanding on dense SLAM

   https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2016.7759111  

   Li, Chi ; Xiao, Han ; Tateno, Keisuke ; Tombari, Federico ; Navab, Nassir ; Hager, Gregory D. ( October 2016 , IROS)

   We present an architecture for online, incremental scene modeling which combines a SLAM-based scene understanding framework with semantic segmentation and object pose estimation. The core of this approach comprises a probabilistic inference scheme that predicts semantic labels for object hypotheses at each new frame. From these hypotheses, recognized scene structures are incrementally constructed and tracked. Semantic labels are inferred using a multi-domain convolutional architecture which operates on the image time series and which enables efficient propagation of features as well as robust model registration. To evaluate this architecture, we introduce a large-scale RGB-D dataset JHUSEQ-25 as a new benchmark for the sequence-based scene understanding in complex and densely cluttered scenes. This dataset contains 25 RGB-D video sequences with 100,000 labeled frames in total. We validate our method on this dataset and demonstrate improved performance of semantic segmentation and 6-DoF object pose estimation compared with methods based on the single view. 

   more » « less
5. PoseASL: An RGBD Dataset of American Sign Language

   https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1279  

   Huenerfauth, Matt ( January 2021 , Databrary)

   The PoseASL dataset consists of color and depth videos collected from ASL signers at the Linguistic and Assistive Technologies Laboratory under the direction of Matt Huenerfauth, as part of a collaborative research project with researchers at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Boston University, and the University of Pennsylvania. Access: After becoming an authorized user of Databrary, please contact Matt Huenerfauth if you have difficulty accessing this volume. We have collected a new dataset consisting of color and depth videos of fluent American Sign Language signers performing sequences ASL signs and sentences. Given interest among sign-recognition and other computer-vision researchers in red-green-blue-depth (RBGD) video, we release this dataset for use by the research community. In addition to the video files, we share depth data files from a Kinect v2 sensor, as well as additional motion-tracking files produced through post-processing of this data. Organization of the Dataset: The dataset is organized into sub-folders, with codenames such as "P01" or "P16" etc. These codenames refer to specific human signers who were recorded in this dataset. Please note that there was no participant P11 nor P14; those numbers were accidentally skipped during the process of making appointments to collect video stimuli. Task: During the recording session, the participant was met by a member of our research team who was a native ASL signer. No other individuals were present during the data collection session. After signing the informed consent and video release document, participants responded to a demographic questionnaire. Next, the data-collection session consisted of English word stimuli and cartoon videos. The recording session began with showing participants stimuli consisting of slides that displayed English word and photos of items, and participants were asked to produce the sign for each (PDF included in materials subfolder). Next, participants viewed three videos of short animated cartoons, which they were asked to recount in ASL: - Canary Row, Warner Brothers Merrie Melodies 1950 (the 7-minute video divided into seven parts) - Mr. Koumal Flies Like a Bird, Studio Animovaneho Filmu 1969 - Mr. Koumal Battles his Conscience, Studio Animovaneho Filmu 1971 The word list and cartoons were selected as they are identical to the stimuli used in the collection of the Nicaraguan Sign Language video corpora - see: Senghas, A. (1995). Children’s Contribution to the Birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT. Demographics: All 14 of our participants were fluent ASL signers. As screening, we asked our participants: Did you use ASL at home growing up, or did you attend a school as a very young child where you used ASL? All the participants responded affirmatively to this question. A total of 14 DHH participants were recruited on the Rochester Institute of Technology campus. Participants included 7 men and 7 women, aged 21 to 35 (median = 23.5). All of our participants reported that they began using ASL when they were 5 years old or younger, with 8 reporting ASL use since birth, and 3 others reporting ASL use since age 18 months. Filetypes: *.avi, *_dep.bin: The PoseASL dataset has been captured by using a Kinect 2.0 RGBD camera. The output of this camera system includes multiple channels which include RGB, depth, skeleton joints (25 joints for every video frame), and HD face (1,347 points). The video resolution produced in 1920 x 1080 pixels for the RGB channel and 512 x 424 pixels for the depth channels respectively. Due to limitations in the acceptable filetypes for sharing on Databrary, it was not permitted to share binary *_dep.bin files directly produced by the Kinect v2 camera system on the Databrary platform. If your research requires the original binary *_dep.bin files, then please contact Matt Huenerfauth. *_face.txt, *_HDface.txt, *_skl.txt: To make it easier for future researchers to make use of this dataset, we have also performed some post-processing of the Kinect data. To extract the skeleton coordinates of the RGB videos, we used the Openpose system, which is capable of detecting body, hand, facial, and foot keypoints of multiple people on single images in real time. The output of Openpose includes estimation of 70 keypoints for the face including eyes, eyebrows, nose, mouth and face contour. The software also estimates 21 keypoints for each of the hands (Simon et al, 2017), including 3 keypoints for each finger, as shown in Figure 2. Additionally, there are 25 keypoints estimated for the body pose (and feet) (Cao et al, 2017; Wei et al, 2016). Reporting Bugs or Errors: Please contact Matt Huenerfauth to report any bugs or errors that you identify in the corpus. We appreciate your help in improving the quality of the corpus over time by identifying any errors. Acknowledgement: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under award 1749376: "Collaborative Research: Multimethod Investigation of Articulatory and Perceptual Constraints on Natural Language Evolution." 

   more » « less