Automatic extraction and classification of footwear patterns

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4224 LNCS, Issue , 2006, Pages 721-728

  Pavlou, Maria ^a   Allinson, Nigel M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; AUTOMATION; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); DATA STRUCTURES; FEATURE EXTRACTION; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS;

CONSTRAINED SPECTRAL CORRESPONDENCE METHODS; FEATURE DETECTORS; FEATURE TRANSFORMATION; FOOTWEAR TRACES;

PATTERN RECOGNITION;

EID: 33750556167     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11875581_87     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. W. J. Bodziak, Footwear impression evidence detection, recovery and examination, Second ed. CRC Press, 2000
2. A. Girod, Computer classification of the shoeprint of burglars' shoes, Forensic Science Int., 82, 1996, p59-65.
3. Z. Geradts and J. Keijzer, The image-database REBEZO for shoeprints with developments on automatic classification of shoe outsole designs, Forensic Science Int., 82, 1996, p21-31.
4. N. Sawyer, SHOE-FIT A computerised shoe print database, Proc. European Convention on Security and Detection, 1995, p86-89.
5. W. Ashley, What shoe was that? The use of computerised image database to assist in identification, Forensic Science Int., 82(1), 1996, p7-20.
6. S. Mikkonen, V. Suominen and P. Heinonen, Use of footwear impressions in crime scene investigations assisted by computerised footwear collection system, Forensic Science Int., 82, 1996, p67-79.
7. S. Mikkonen and T. Astikainen, Databased classification system for shoe sole patterns - identification of partial footwear impression found at a scene of crime. Journal of Forensic Science, 39(5), 1994, p1227-1236.
8. A. Bouridane, A. Alexander, M. Nibouche and D. Crookes, Application of fractals to the detection and classification of shoeprints, Proc. 2000 Int. Conf. Image Processing, 1, 2000, p474-477.
9. A. Alexander, A. Bouridane and D. Crookes, Automatic classification and recognition of shoeprints, Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. Image Processing and Its Applications, 2, 1999, p638-641.
10. P. de Chazal, J. Flynn and R. B. Reilly, Automated processing of shoeprint images based on the Fourier Transform for use in forensic science, IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 27(3), 2005, p341-350.
11. L. Zhang and N. Allinson, Automatic shoeprint retrieval system for use in forensic investigations, UK Workshop On Computational Intelligence (UKCI05), 2005.
12. K. Mikolajczyk, T. Tuytelaars, C. Schmid, A. Zisserman, J. Matas, F. Schaffalitzky, T. Kadir and L. Van Gool, A comparison of affine region detectors, Int. Journal of Computer Vision, 65(1/2), 2005, p43-72.
13. K. Mikolajczyk and C. Schmid, Scale and affine invariant interest point detectors, Int. Journal of Computer Vision 60(1), 2004, p6386.
14. K. Mikolajczyk and C. Schmid, A performance evaluation of local descriptors, IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 27(10), 2004, p1615-1630.
15. M. Pilu, A direct method for stereo correspondence based on singular value decomposition, IEEE Conf. Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition (CVPR'97), 1997, p261.
16. G. Scott and H. Longuet-Higgins. An algorithm for associating the features of two patterns. Proc. Royal Society London, B244, 1991, p21-26.
17. S. Ullman. The interpretation of Visual Motion. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1979.
18. Data taken from the UK National Shoewear Database, Forensic Science Service, Birmingham, B37 7YN, UK.