skip to main content
research-article

Map-based exploration of intrinsic shape differences and variability

Published:21 July 2013Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We develop a novel formulation for the notion of shape differences, aimed at providing detailed information about the location and nature of the differences or distortions between the two shapes being compared. Our difference operator, derived from a shape map, is much more informative than just a scalar global shape similarity score, rendering it useful in a variety of applications where more refined shape comparisons are necessary. The approach is intrinsic and is based on a linear algebraic framework, allowing the use of many common linear algebra tools (e.g, SVD, PCA) for studying a matrix representation of the operator. Remarkably, the formulation allows us not only to localize shape differences on the shapes involved, but also to compare shape differences across pairs of shapes, and to analyze the variability in entire shape collections based on the differences between the shapes. Moreover, while we use a map or correspondence to define each shape difference, consistent correspondences between the shapes are not necessary for comparing shape differences, although they can be exploited if available. We give a number of applications of shape differences, including parameterizing the intrinsic variability in a shape collection, exploring shape collections using local variability at different scales, performing shape analogies, and aligning shape collections.

References

  1. Allen, B., Curless, B., and Popović, Z. 2003. The space of human body shapes: reconstruction and parameterization from range scans. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3 (July), 587--594. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Anguelov, D., Srinivasan, P., Koller, D., Thrun, S., Rodgers, J., and Davis, J. 2005. Scape: shape completion and animation of people. ACM Trans. Graph. 24, 3, 408--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ben-Chen, M., Weber, O., and Gotsman, C. 2009. Variational harmonic maps for space deformation. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 3 (July), 34:1--34:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bookstein, F. 1996. Shape and the information in medical images: A decade of the morphometric synthesis. In Proc. IEEE MMBIA, 2--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Brezis, H. 2010. Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronstein, A., Bronstein, M., and Kimmel, R. 2006. Generalized multidimensional scaling: a framework for isometry-invariant partial surface matching. PNAS 103, 5, 1168--1172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Bronstein, A., Bronstein, M., and Kimmel, R. 2008. Numerical Geometry of Non-Rigid Shapes. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cootes, T., Taylor, C., et al. 2001. Statistical models of appearance for medical image analysis and computer vision. In Proc. SPIE Medical Imaging, vol. 4322, 236--248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Dryden, I. L., and Mardia, K. V. 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. John Wiley and Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell, R., Branson, S., and Welinder, P., 2011. First Workshop on Fine-Grained Visual Categorization (FGVC) at CVPR 2011. http://http://www.fgvc.org/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Fletcher, P., Lu, C., Pizer, S., and Joshi, S. 2004. Principal geodesic analysis for the study of nonlinear statistics of shape. Medical Imaging, IEEE Transactions on 23, 8, 995--1005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Gerig, G., Styner, M., Shenton, M., and Lieberman, J. 2001. Shape versus size: Improved understanding of the morphology of brain structures. In Proc. MICCAI, 24--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Golland, P., Grimson, W., Shenton, M., and Kikinis, R. 2005. Detection and analysis of statistical differences in anatomical shape. Medical Image Analysis 9, 1, 69--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Hasler, N., Stoll, C., Sunkel, M., Rosenhahn, B., and Seidel, H. 2009. A statistical model of human pose and body shape. Computer Graphics Forum 28, 2, 337--346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Hertzmann, A., Jacobs, C. E., Oliver, N., Curless, B., and Salesin, D. H. 2001. Image analogies. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 327--340. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kass, M., Witkin, A., and Terzopoulos, D. 1988. Snakes: Active contour models. Int. J. Comput. Vision 1, 4, 321--331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Kilian, M., Mitra, N. J., and Pottmann, H. 2007. Geometric modeling in shape space. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, 64:1--64:8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kim, V. G., Lipman, Y., and Funkhouser, T. 2011. Blended intrinsic maps. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4 (July), 79:1--79:12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Kim, V. G., Li, W., Mitra, N. J., DiVerdi, S., and Funkhouser, T. 2012. Exploring collections of 3d models using fuzzy correspondences. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4 (July), 54:1--54:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Lai, R., Shi, Y., Scheibel, K., Fears, S., Woods, R., Toga, A., and Chan, T. 2010. Metric-induced optimal embedding for intrinsic 3d shape analysis. In CVPR, 2871--2878.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Nain, D., Styner, M., Niethammer, M., Levitt, J., Shenton, M., Gerig, G., Bobick, A., and Tannenbaum, A. 2007. Statistical shape analysis of brain structures using spherical wavelets. In Proc. ISBI, 209--212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ovsjanikov, M., Li, W., Guibas, L., and Mitra, N. J. 2011. Exploration of continuous variability in collections of 3d shapes. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4 (July), 33:1--33:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Ovsjanikov, M., Ben-Chen, M., Solomon, J., Butscher, A., and Guibas, L. 2012. Functional maps: a flexible representation of maps between shapes. ACM Trans. Graph. 31, 4 (July), 30:1--30:11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ovsjanikov, M., Ben-Chen, M., Chazal, F., and Guibas, L. 2013. Analysis and visualization of maps between shapes. Computer Graphics Forum. To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinkall, U., and Polthier, K. 1993. Computing discrete minimal surfaces and their conjugates. Exp. Math. 2, 1, 15--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Sahillioǧlu, Y., and Yemez, Y. 2011. Coarse-to-fine combinatorial matching for dense isometric shape correspondence. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 5, 1461--1470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Schaefer, S., McPhail, T., and Warren, J. 2006. Image deformation using moving least squares. ACM Trans. Graph. 25, 3 (July), 533--540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Schumacher, H. 2013. Conformal maps and p-Dirichlet energies. Tech. rep., Univ. of Göttingen.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharma, A., and Horaud, R. 2010. Shape matching based on diffusion embedding and on mutual isometric consistency. In Proc. NORDIA Workshop (CVPR), 29--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sumner, R. W., and Popović, J. 2004. Deformation transfer for triangle meshes. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3 (Aug.), 399--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Vasilescu, M., and Terzopoulos, D. 2007. Multilinear (tensor) ICA and dimensionality reduction. Independent Component Analysis and Signal Separation, 818--826. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Gutman, B., Chan, T., Becker, J., Aizenstein, H., Lopez, O., Tamburo, R., Toga, A., and Thompson, P. 2010. Multivariate tensor-based morphometry on surfaces: Application to mapping ventricular abnormalities in hiv/aids. Neuroimage 49, 3, 2141--2157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Wuhrer, S., Shu, C., and Xi, P. 2012. Posture-invariant statistical shape analysis using laplace operator. Computers & Graphics 36, 5, 410--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Map-based exploration of intrinsic shape differences and variability

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
        ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 32, Issue 4
        July 2013
        1215 pages
        ISSN:0730-0301
        EISSN:1557-7368
        DOI:10.1145/2461912
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 21 July 2013
        Published in tog Volume 32, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader