2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2012.06.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

LF-EME: Local features with elastic manifold embedding for human action recognition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The experiments on the KTH and UCF Sports datasets show that our method achieves better performance than the classical methods published recently [11][12][13][14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The experiments on the KTH and UCF Sports datasets show that our method achieves better performance than the classical methods published recently [11][12][13][14][15][16].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…Table 1 shows the performance comparison between our system and some classical system published recently. The competing methods include local representation-based approaches [11][12][13][14][15][16], global representation-based approach. In detail, SC was used for feature coding together with BoF in [11], local feature distribution information was used in [14], ST context feature was employed in [12], sparse representation-based classification methods was applied in [13], the global representation method was adopted in [15], and a framework based on Elastic Manifold Embedding together with local interest point features to handle human action recognition in [16].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…And the motion information (described as STOE feature) shows how the body part moves. It is noted that our feature do not contain appearance information (for example, histogram of oriented gradient (HOG) feature), because appearance information [18] 2010 Split 94.9 84.3 ---Wu et al [35] 2011 LOOCV 94.5 91.3 ---Escobar et al [15] 2012 Split 90.6 ---99.2 Guha et al [19] 2012 LOOCV ---91.1 98.9 Bregonzio et al [36] 2012 LOOCV 94.3 ---96.6 Zhang et al [38] 2012 LOOCV 95.6 87.3 ---Saghafi et al [16] 2012 LOOCV 92.6 ---100 Deng et al [9] 2012 LOOCV 96.9 88.4 100 LGSR+MSPC-LC LOOCV 98.5 93.5 100 Table 6. Confusion matrix on the UCF Sports dataset with 4-level spatial pyramid match (SPM).…”
Section: Lgsr Versus Srcmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quality of the learnt model decides discriminative power usually results in good classification result. There are two representation methods: holistic action representations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and local action representations [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the local features usually reside on nonlinear manifolds [20]. Neither SVQ nor SC can preserve the nonlinear manifold structure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%