skip to main content
10.1145/3571600.3571644acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicvgipConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Enhanced Kernelized Conditional Spatial Fuzzy C Means Algorithm for Noisy Brain MRI Tissue Segmentation

Published:12 May 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes an Enhanced Kernelized Conditional Spatial Fuzzy C Means (EKCSFCM) clustering algorithm targeted at segmentation of Brain Magnetic Resonance (MR) image data. The approach amalgamates kernel mapping with a spatially relevant fuzzy clustering paradigm for image segmentation. A technique for rank-based consideration of spatial information is introduced and is used along with spatial tuning parameters for controlling neighborhood effects during data point clustering. The kernelized approach and the spatial parameters handle intensity inhomogeneities and strengthen the performance of the algorithm by improving resiliency against noise and other aberrations. For analyzing the robustness of the approach, four volumes of brain MR data, each comprising 71 images are used. These images are also corrupted with noise and inhomogeneities for evaluating the efficiency of different approaches in noisy image segmentation. The experimentation results along with the qualitative and quantitative inferences verify the robustness of the algorithm across a wide variety of test cases.

References

  1. Sudip Kumar Adhikari, Jamuna Kanta Sing, Dipak Kumar Basu, and Mita Nasipuri. 2015. Conditional spatial fuzzy C-means clustering algorithm for segmentation of MRI images. Applied soft computing 34 (2015), 758–769.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mohamed N Ahmed, Sameh M Yamany, Nevin Mohamed, Aly A Farag, and Thomas Moriarty. 2002. A modified fuzzy c-means algorithm for bias field estimation and segmentation of MRI data. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 21, 3 (2002), 193–199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Weiling Cai, Songcan Chen, and Daoqiang Zhang. 2007. Fast and robust fuzzy c-means clustering algorithms incorporating local information for image segmentation. Pattern recognition 40, 3 (2007), 825–838.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Songcan Chen and Daoqiang Zhang. 2004. Robust image segmentation using FCM with spatial constraints based on new kernel-induced distance measure. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 34, 4(2004), 1907–1916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Keh-Shih Chuang, Hong-Long Tzeng, Sharon Chen, Jay Wu, and Tzong-Jer Chen. 2006. Fuzzy c-means clustering with spatial information for image segmentation. computerized medical imaging and graphics 30, 1 (2006), 9–15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chris A Cocosco, Vasken Kollokian, Remi K-S Kwan, G Bruce Pike, and Alan C Evans. 1997. Brainweb: Online interface to a 3D MRI simulated brain database. In NeuroImage. Citeseer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. BR Condon, J Patterson, D Wyper, A Jenkins, and DM Hadley. 1987. Image non-uniformity in magnetic resonance imaging: its magnitude and methods for its correction. The British journal of radiology 60, 709 (1987), 83–87.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Pierrick Coupé, José V Manjón, Elias Gedamu, Douglas Arnold, Montserrat Robles, and D Louis Collins. 2010. Robust Rician noise estimation for MR images. Medical image analysis 14, 4 (2010), 483–493.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Poulomi Das and Arpita Das. 2019. A fast and automated segmentation method for detection of masses using folded kernel based fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. Applied Soft Computing 85 (2019), 105775.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ivana Despotović, Bart Goossens, and Wilfried Philips. 2015. MRI segmentation of the human brain: challenges, methods, and applications. Computational and mathematical methods in medicine 2015 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hákon Gudbjartsson and Samuel Patz. 1995. The Rician distribution of noisy MRI data. Magnetic resonance in medicine 34, 6 (1995), 910–914.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Timothy C Havens, James C Bezdek, Christopher Leckie, Lawrence O Hall, and Marimuthu Palaniswami. 2012. Fuzzy c-means algorithms for very large data. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 20, 6 (2012), 1130–1146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jiayin Kang, Lequan Min, Qingxian Luan, Xiao Li, and Jinzhu Liu. 2009. Novel modified fuzzy c-means algorithm with applications. Digital signal processing 19, 2 (2009), 309–319.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Stelios Krinidis and Vassilios Chatzis. 2010. A robust fuzzy local information C-means clustering algorithm. IEEE transactions on image processing 19, 5 (2010), 1328–1337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. ER McVeigh, MJ Bronskill, and RM Henkelman. 1986. Phase and sensitivity of receiver coils in magnetic resonance imaging. Medical physics 13, 6 (1986), 806–814.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Nevin A Mohamed, Mohamed N Ahmed, and A Farag. 1999. Modified fuzzy c-mean in medical image segmentation. In 1999 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings. ICASSP99 (Cat. No. 99CH36258), Vol. 6. IEEE, 3429–3432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Anupama Namburu, Srinivas kumar Samay, and Srinivasa Reddy Edara. 2017. Soft fuzzy rough set-based MR brain image segmentation. Applied Soft Computing 54 (2017), 456–466.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Alireza Norouzi, Mohd Shafry Mohd Rahim, Ayman Altameem, Tanzila Saba, Abdolvahab Ehsani Rad, Amjad Rehman, and Mueen Uddin. 2014. Medical image segmentation methods, algorithms, and applications. IETE Technical Review 31, 3 (2014), 199–213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Nikhil R Pal, Kuhu Pal, James M Keller, and James C Bezdek. 2005. A possibilistic fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. IEEE transactions on fuzzy systems 13, 4 (2005), 517–530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Dzung L Pham and Jerry L Prince. 1999. Adaptive fuzzy segmentation of magnetic resonance images. IEEE transactions on medical imaging 18, 9 (1999), 737–752.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Chandan Singh and Anu Bala. 2019. A transform-based fast fuzzy C-means approach for high brain MRI segmentation accuracy. Applied Soft Computing 76 (2019), 156–173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. László Szilagyi, Zoltán Benyo, Sándor M Szilágyi, and HS Adam. 2003. MR brain image segmentation using an enhanced fuzzy c-means algorithm. In Proceedings of the 25th annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (IEEE Cat. No. 03CH37439), Vol. 1. IEEE, 724–726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Marinus T Vlaardingerbroek and Jacques A Boer. 2013. Magnetic resonance imaging: theory and practice. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. David AG Wicks, Gareth J Barker, and Paul S Tofts. 1993. Correction of intensity nonuniformity in MR images of any orientation. Magnetic resonance imaging 11, 2 (1993), 183–196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Chengmao Wu and Xiaoqiang Yang. 2020. Robust credibilistic fuzzy local information clustering with spatial information constraints. Digital Signal Processing 97 (2020), 102615.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Chenyang Xu, Dzung L Pham, and Jerry L Prince. 2000. Image segmentation using deformable models. In Handbook of medical imaging. Vol. 2. SPIE, 129–174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Dao-Qiang Zhang and Song-Can Chen. 2004. A novel kernelized fuzzy c-means algorithm with application in medical image segmentation. Artificial intelligence in medicine 32, 1 (2004), 37–50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Xiaofeng Zhang, Muwei Jian, Yujuan Sun, Hua Wang, and Caiming Zhang. 2020. Improving image segmentation based on patch-weighted distance and fuzzy clustering. Multimedia Tools and Applications 79, 1 (2020), 633–657.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Xiaofeng Zhang, Yujuan Sun, Gang Wang, Qiang Guo, Caiming Zhang, and Beijing Chen. 2017. Improved fuzzy clustering algorithm with non-local information for image segmentation. Multimedia Tools and Applications 76, 6 (2017), 7869–7895.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Enhanced Kernelized Conditional Spatial Fuzzy C Means Algorithm for Noisy Brain MRI Tissue Segmentation

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            ICVGIP '22: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Indian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing
            December 2022
            506 pages
            ISBN:9781450398220
            DOI:10.1145/3571600

            Copyright © 2022 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 12 May 2023

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate95of286submissions,33%
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)32
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format