skip to main content

Title: Video Surveillance Framework Based on Real-Time Face Mask Detection and Recognition
In this paper we proposed a real-time face mask detection and recognition for CCTV surveillance camera videos. The proposed work consists of six steps: video acquisition and keyframes selection, data augmentation, facial parts segmentation, pixel-based feature extraction, Bag of Visual Words (BoVW) generation, face mask detection, and face recognition. In the first step, a set of keyframes are selected using histogram of gradient (HoG) algorithm. Secondly, data augmentation is involved with three steps as color normalization, illumination correction (CLAHE), and poses normalization (Angular Affine Transformation). In third step, facial parts are segmented using clustering approach i.e. Expectation Maximization with Gaussian Mixture Model (EM-GMM), in which facial regions are segmented into Eyes, Nose, Mouth, Chin, and Forehead. Then, Pixel-based Feature Extraction is performed using Yolo Nano approach, which performance is higher and lightweight model than the Yolo Tiny V2 and Yolo Tiny V3, and extracted features are constructed into Codebook by Hassanat Similarity with K-Nearest neighbor (H-M with KNN) algorithm. For mask detection, L2 distance function is used. The final step is face recognition which is implemented by a Kernel-based Extreme Learning Machine with Slime Mould Optimization (SMO). Experiments conducted using Python IDLE 3.8 for the proposed Yolo Nano model and more » also previous works as GMM with Deep learning (GMM+DL), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with VGGF, Yolo Tiny V2, and Yolo Tiny V3 in terms of various performance metrics. « less
Authors:
; ;
Award ID(s):
1946391
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10321732
Journal Name:
International Conference on INnovations in Intelligent SysTems and Applications (INISTA), 2021
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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 EEGmore »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.« less
  2. Face registration is a major and critical step for face analysis. Existing facial activity recognition systems often employ coarse face alignment based on a few fiducial points such as eyes and extract features from equal-sized grid. Such extracted features are susceptible to variations in face pose, facial deformation, and person-specific geometry. In this work, we propose a novel face registration method named facial grid transformation to improve feature extraction for recognizing facial Action Units (AUs). Based on the transformed grid, novel grid edge features are developed to capture local facial motions related to AUs. Extensive experiments on two wellknown AU-coded databases have demonstrated that the proposed method yields significant improvements over the methods based on equal-sized grid on both posed and more importantly, spontaneous facial displays. Furthermore, the proposed method also outperforms the state-of-the-art methods using either coarse alignment or mesh-based face registration.
  3. Vedaldi, A. (Ed.)
    In state-of-the-art deep neural networks, both feature normalization and feature attention have become ubiquitous. They are usually studied as separate modules, however. In this paper, we propose a light-weight integration between the two schema and present Attentive Normalization (AN). Instead of learning a single affine transformation, AN learns a mixture of affine transformations and utilizes their weighted-sum as the final affine transformation applied to re-calibrate features in an instance-specific way. The weights are learned by leveraging channel-wise feature attention. In experiments, we test the proposed AN using four representative neural architectures. In the ImageNet-1000 classification benchmark and the MS-COCO 2017 object detection and instance segmentation benchmark. AN obtains consistent performance improvement for different neural architectures in both benchmarks with absolute increase of top-1 accuracy in ImageNet-1000 between 0.5\% and 2.7\%, and absolute increase up to 1.8\% and 2.2\% for bounding box and mask AP in MS-COCO respectively. We observe that the proposed AN provides a strong alternative to the widely used Squeeze-and-Excitation (SE) module. The source codes are publicly available at \href{https://github.com/iVMCL/AOGNet-v2}{the ImageNet Classification Repo} and \href{https://github.com/iVMCL/AttentiveNorm\_Detection}{the MS-COCO Detection and Segmentation Repo}.
  4. Human activity recognition (HAR) from wearable sensor data has recently gained widespread adoption in a number of fields. However, recognizing complex human activities, postural and rhythmic body movements (e.g., dance, sports) is challenging due to the lack of domain-specific labeling information, the perpetual variability in human movement kinematics profiles due to age, sex, dexterity and the level of professional training. In this paper, we propose a deep activity recognition model to work with limited labeled data, both for simple and complex human activities. To mitigate the intra- and inter-user spatio-temporal variability of movements, we posit novel data augmentation and domain normalization techniques. We depict a semi-supervised technique that learns noise and transformation invariant feature representation from sparsely labeled data to accommodate intra-personal and inter-user variations of human movement kinematics. We also postulate a transfer learning approach to learn domain invariant feature representations by minimizing the feature distribution distance between the source and target domains. We showcase the improved performance of our proposed framework, AugToAct, using a public HAR dataset. We also design our own data collection, annotation and experimental setup on complex dance activity recognition steps and kinematics movements where we achieved higher performance metrics with limited label data comparedmore »to simple activity recognition tasks.« less
  5. Human action recognition is an important topic in artificial intelligence with a wide range of applications including surveillance systems, search-and-rescue operations, human-computer interaction, etc. However, most of the current action recognition systems utilize videos captured by stationary cameras. Another emerging technology is the use of unmanned ground and aerial vehicles (UAV/UGV) for different tasks such as transportation, traffic control, border patrolling, wild-life monitoring, etc. This technology has become more popular in recent years due to its affordability, high maneuverability, and limited human interventions. However, there does not exist an efficient action recognition algorithm for UAV-based monitoring platforms. This paper considers UAV-based video action recognition by addressing the key issues of aerial imaging systems such as camera motion and vibration, low resolution, and tiny human size. In particular, we propose an automated deep learning-based action recognition system which includes the three stages of video stabilization using the SURF feature selection and Lucas-Kanade method, human action area detection using faster region-based convolutional neural networks (R-CNN), and action recognition. We propose a novel structure that extends and modifies the InceptionResNet-v2 architecture by combining a 3D CNN architecture and a residual network for action recognition. We achieve an average accuracy of 85.83% for themore »entire-video-level recognition when applying our algorithm to the popular UCF-ARG aerial imaging dataset. This accuracy significantly improves upon the state-of-the-art accuracy by a margin of 17%.« less