2019
DOI: 10.1007/s00500-019-03991-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance analysis on feature extraction using dorsal hand vein image

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The experimental results are shown in Table 5. It can be seen from Table 5 that the recognition rate of using the PLBP and HOG algorithms alone not only does not achieve good results but also is much lower than the experimental results of other researchers [10] on the NCUT dataset. The reason for the analysis is that when other researchers conducted experiments on the NCUT dataset, they used the original dataset and did not use Gaussian noise to expand the dataset.…”
Section: Feature Fusion Robustness Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 71%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The experimental results are shown in Table 5. It can be seen from Table 5 that the recognition rate of using the PLBP and HOG algorithms alone not only does not achieve good results but also is much lower than the experimental results of other researchers [10] on the NCUT dataset. The reason for the analysis is that when other researchers conducted experiments on the NCUT dataset, they used the original dataset and did not use Gaussian noise to expand the dataset.…”
Section: Feature Fusion Robustness Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…The convolved HOG feature is HOG_Feature, and then spatial feature fusion is performed with Feature_Map. The fusion method is shown in Equation (10), and the fusion method is shown in Formula (11). Then input the fused features into the ResNet residual block, and finally reduce the dimension of the feature map output by the ResNet residual block and input it into the fully connected layer for classification.…”
Section: Layer Namementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When compared to the scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) technique, the proposed method can improve the recognition rate from 86.60% to 93.33%. Vairavel et al [16] presented several methods for extracting features such as the local binary pattern (LBP), histogram of oriented gradients (HOG), and weber local descriptor (WLD), and performance is evaluated in terms of KNN classification accuracy. The WLD method has an accuracy up to 98%, the LBP method has 96% of recognition accuracy, and the HOG method, when compared to both, has the best recognition accuracy up to 99.00%.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%