2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2018
DOI: 10.1109/iros.2018.8593430
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

3D Shape Perception from Monocular Vision, Touch, and Shape Priors

Abstract: Perceiving accurate 3D object shape is important for robots to interact with the physical world. Current research along this direction has been primarily relying on visual observations. Vision, however useful, has inherent limitations due to occlusions and the 2D-3D ambiguities, especially for perception with a monocular camera. In contrast, touch gets precise local shape information, though its efficiency for reconstructing the entire shape could be low. In this paper, we propose a novel paradigm that efficie… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
66
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
66
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ames Chair (Ittelson, 1952), would be seen as unbroken and cohesive from the proper viewpoint, without having to invoke stronger assumptions of simplicity or regularity in reconstructing the 3D world (Li & Pizlo, 2011). The "generic viewpoint assumption" (Freeman, 1994) thus implicitly contains a "generic projective geometry assumption", and this can be made more concrete in object and scene perception by incorporating priors that assume the invariants of projective geometry, especially when extracting 3D shapes from contours (Li, Pizlo & Steinman, 2009;Elder, 2018;Wang et al, 2018). The fact that slant is ambiguous in perspective projection is compatible with some real-world illusions of slant and non-rigidity (Griffiths & Zaidi, 1998, 2000.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ames Chair (Ittelson, 1952), would be seen as unbroken and cohesive from the proper viewpoint, without having to invoke stronger assumptions of simplicity or regularity in reconstructing the 3D world (Li & Pizlo, 2011). The "generic viewpoint assumption" (Freeman, 1994) thus implicitly contains a "generic projective geometry assumption", and this can be made more concrete in object and scene perception by incorporating priors that assume the invariants of projective geometry, especially when extracting 3D shapes from contours (Li, Pizlo & Steinman, 2009;Elder, 2018;Wang et al, 2018). The fact that slant is ambiguous in perspective projection is compatible with some real-world illusions of slant and non-rigidity (Griffiths & Zaidi, 1998, 2000.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Integrating visual and tactile information for object shape estimation [13]- [16] as well as object recognition [28] has been studied. However, these studies commonly assumed that the visual and tactile shapes are very similar to the actual object shape.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To improve the efficiency of tactile exploration, exploiting visual information obtained through cameras has been explored since visual information can be in a wide range without physical touch. For example, both visual and tactile information is simply used in a mixed way [13], [14], or utilizing uncertainty of shapes constructed from visual information for active tactile shape estimation [15], [16]. However, it is not straightforward for objects covered with soft materials, since the visual information captures the outer shape of the covered materials, and it is unknown how much such visual-outer shape is similar/dissimilar to the tactile-inner shape.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2. This work is differentiated from others [1] in that our CNN is acting on both the depth and tactile as input information fed directly into the model rather than using the tactile information to update the output of a CNN not explicitly trained on tactile information. This enables the tactile information to produce non-local changes in the resulting mesh.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%