STV-based Video Feature Processing for Action Recognition

In comparison to still image-based processes, video features can provide rich and intuitive information about dynamic events occurred over a period of time, such as human actions, crowd behaviours, and other subject pattern changes. Although substantial progresses have been made in the last decade on image processing and seen its successful applications in face matching and object recognition, video-based event detection still remains one of the most difficult challenges in computer vision research due to its complex continuous or discrete input signals, arbitrary dynamic feature definitions, and the often ambiguous analytical methods. In this paper, a Spatio-Temporal Volume (STV) and region intersection (RI) based 3D shape-matching method has been proposed to facilitate the definition and recognition of human actions recorded in videos. The distinctive characteristics and the performance gain of the devised approach stemmed from a coefficient factor-boosted 3D region intersection and matching mechanism developed in this research. This paper also reported the investigation into techniques for efficient STV data filtering to reduce the amount of voxels (volumetric-pixels) that need to be processed in each operational cycle in the implemented system. The encouraging features and improvements on the operational performance registered in the experiments have been discussed at the end

A discussion on the validation tests employed to compare human action recognition methods using the MSR Action3D dataset

This paper aims to determine which is the best human action recognition method based on features extracted from RGB-D devices, such as the Microsoft Kinect. A review of all the papers that make reference to MSR Action3D, the most used dataset that includes depth information acquired from a RGB-D device, has been performed. We found that the validation method used by each work differs from the others. So, a direct comparison among works cannot be made. However, almost all the works present their results comparing them without taking into account this issue. Therefore, we present different rankings according to the methodology used for the validation in orden to clarify the existing confusion.Comment: 16 pages and 7 table