2001
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45344-x_44
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Multi-view Method for Gait Recognition Using Static Body Parameters

Abstract: Abstract.A multi-view gait recognition method using recovered static body parameters of subjects is presented; we refer to these parameters as activity-specific biometrics. Our data consists of 18 subjects walking at both an angled and frontal-parallel view with respect to the camera. When only considering data from a single view, subjects are easily discriminated; however, discrimination decreases when data across views are considered. To compare between views, we use ground truth motioncapture data of a refe… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
108
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 145 publications
(108 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
108
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarity plots are then assigned to the various eigengaits for recognition, obtaining a recognition rate of 93% on a database of 6 subjects. Johnson et al presented a multi-view gait recognition method using recovered static body parameters (activity-specific biometrics) of subjects [11]. The technique uses the action of walking across multiple views to extract relative body parameters of subjects.…”
Section: : Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarity plots are then assigned to the various eigengaits for recognition, obtaining a recognition rate of 93% on a database of 6 subjects. Johnson et al presented a multi-view gait recognition method using recovered static body parameters (activity-specific biometrics) of subjects [11]. The technique uses the action of walking across multiple views to extract relative body parameters of subjects.…”
Section: : Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The matching of the trajectories of these features rely on simple spatio-temporal correlation [15,8,11], or matching maps of silhouette correlations [1], or dynamic time warping and HMM [4,13]. Apart from these classes of approaches that tend to emphasize both the shape of the silhouette and its evolution over time, there are approaches that emphasize just the shape [3,14] or use static body parameters [6] with 0 This research was supported by funds from DARPA (F49620-00-1-00388) and NSF (EIA 0130768).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the current approaches, most are based on analysis of silhouettes, including: the University of Maryland's (UM's) deployment of hidden Markov models [24] and eigenanalysis [25]; the National Institute for Standards in Technology / University of South Florida's (NIST/USF's) baseline approach matching silhouettes [26]; Georgia Institute of Technology's (GaTech's) data derivation of stride pattern [27]; Carnegie Mellon University's (CMU's) use of key frame analysis for sequence matching [28]; Southampton's newer approaches that range from a baseline-type approach by measuring area [29], to extension of technique for object description including symmetry [30] (with some justification from psychology studies [13]) and statistical moments [31]; Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) ellipsoidal fits [32]; Curtin's use of Point Distribution Models [33]; USF use the change in the relational statistics among the detected image features (which can handle running too) [34], the Chinese Academy of Science's eigenspace transformation of an unwrapped human silhouette [35] and eigenspace transformation of distance signals derived from sequences of silhouettes [36]; and Riverside's use of kinematic and stationary features [37]. These show promise for approaches that impose low computational and storage cost, together with deployment and development of new computer vision techniques for sequence-based analysis.…”
Section: Recent Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, it is encouraging to note the rich variety of data that has been collected. These include: UM's surveillance data [24]; NIST/ USF's outdoor data, imaging subjects at a distance [40]; GaTech's data combining marker based motion analysis with video imagery [27]; CMU's multi-view indoor data [41]; and Southampton's data [42] which combines ground truth indoor data (processed by broadcast techniques) with video of the same subjects walking in an outdoor scenario (for computer vision analysis). Examples of Maryland's outdoor surveillance view data, a silhouette derived from CMU's treadmill data, and of Southampton's indoor and outdoor data are given in Figs.…”
Section: Available Datamentioning
confidence: 99%