Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 19:12:4.
doi: 10.3389/fnbot.2018.00004. eCollection 2018.

Low-Latency Line Tracking Using Event-Based Dynamic Vision Sensors

Affiliations

Low-Latency Line Tracking Using Event-Based Dynamic Vision Sensors

Lukas Everding et al. Front Neurorobot. .

Abstract

In order to safely navigate and orient in their local surroundings autonomous systems need to rapidly extract and persistently track visual features from the environment. While there are many algorithms tackling those tasks for traditional frame-based cameras, these have to deal with the fact that conventional cameras sample their environment with a fixed frequency. Most prominently, the same features have to be found in consecutive frames and corresponding features then need to be matched using elaborate techniques as any information between the two frames is lost. We introduce a novel method to detect and track line structures in data streams of event-based silicon retinae [also known as dynamic vision sensors (DVS)]. In contrast to conventional cameras, these biologically inspired sensors generate a quasicontinuous stream of vision information analogous to the information stream created by the ganglion cells in mammal retinae. All pixels of DVS operate asynchronously without a periodic sampling rate and emit a so-called DVS address event as soon as they perceive a luminance change exceeding an adjustable threshold. We use the high temporal resolution achieved by the DVS to track features continuously through time instead of only at fixed points in time. The focus of this work lies on tracking lines in a mostly static environment which is observed by a moving camera, a typical setting in mobile robotics. Since DVS events are mostly generated at object boundaries and edges which in man-made environments often form lines they were chosen as feature to track. Our method is based on detecting planes of DVS address events in x-y-t-space and tracing these planes through time. It is robust against noise and runs in real time on a standard computer, hence it is suitable for low latency robotics. The efficacy and performance are evaluated on real-world data sets which show artificial structures in an office-building using event data for tracking and frame data for ground-truth estimation from a DAVIS240C sensor.

Keywords: event-based vision; line detection; line tracking; low-level feature extraction; neuromorphic sensors; robotic vision; silicon retina.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Event traces for a box moved from bottom to top through the field of view of a DVS. Visible are dense manifolds of events corresponding to the two edges of the box. Events originating from the movement of the person holding the box are excluded for the sake of clearer visualization. The frames put in the event stream show snapshots of the situation at the time they were triggered. Box edges are indicated by blue bars for better visibility. Note that one axis corresponds to time!
Figure 2
Figure 2
Davis recorded scene: gray scale frame (left), events (right; events have been accumulated for 50 ms; ON events are depicted white, OFF events black, gray areas did not emit any events in the previous 50 ms; camera was rotated clockwise.).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overview over the algorithm. Top: stream part and bottom: batch part running in background.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Event stream with current position of detected lines (events accumulated for 50 ms). Camera rotates clockwise, so lines move to the left and older events trailing to the right of lines are still visible.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison between different approaches. Top row left-to-right: frame taken from a DAVIS240C recording, frame 200 ms later, ground truth lines for the first frame, ground truth lines for the second frame. Second row left-to-right: (a) Hough transform, (b) LSD, (c) ELiSeD, and (d) our method. Third row: same algorithms as above applied to the second frame. In the images of our method lines were additionally assigned an ID to demonstrate the tracking capabilities (cf. text).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Distributions of length ratios between estimated lines and matching ground truth lines for (A) Hough transformation, (B) LSD, (C) ELiSeD, and (D) our method in percentage.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Histogram over ratios of lifetimes of estimated lines to life time of ground truth lines in percentage.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Dependence of line tracking on line orientation. Top row: (A) stimulus used: lines with increasing degree versus the camera movement in steps of 2° and (B) camera setup on robotic platform, robot was moving to the right during recording. Second/third row: (C) tracking results at the beginning of the recording for ON/Off events. (D) Tracking results toward the end of the recording. Comparing the IDs, that the lines were signed in the images, it can be seen that they were successfully tracked despite being close to parallel to the movement direction of the sensor (lines become visible due to microvibrations of the robot).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Line tracking results for a robot driving over small irregularities caused by a tiled floor. Comparing line IDs shows that lines were tracked even when crossing seams (only ON events).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Snapshots from a sensor mounted on an RC car driving over even floor through a door (time increases from left to right, also see Supplementary Material for the recording).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Left: detail from method of ground truth estimation. Right: true line position (red line) and position estimates (blue crosses) at time of availability. Inlay zooms to region between 1.6 and 1.8 s. Position estimate overestimates true position by a small margin.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Left: dependence between computing time and number of events for a number of different recordings. Right: processed events per second and required computing time for line tracking in the staircase scene.

References

    1. Bagheri Z. M., Cazzolato B. S., Grainger S., O’Carroll D. C., Wiederman S. D. (2017). An autonomous robot inspired by insect neurophysiology pursues moving features in natural environments. J. Neural Eng. 14, 046030.10.1088/1741-2552/aa776c - DOI - PubMed
    1. Borst A., Helmstaedter M. (2015). Common circuit design in fly and mammalian motion vision. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1067.10.1038/nn.4050 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brändli C., Berner R., Yang M., Liu S. C., Delbruck T. (2014). A 240 x 180 130 db 3 us latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor. IEEE J. Solid State Circ. Krakow, 49, 2333–2341.10.1109/JSSC.2014.2342715 - DOI
    1. Brändli C., Strubel J., Keller S., Scaramuzza D., Delbruck T. (2016). “Elised – an event-based line segment detector,” in Second International Conference on Event-based Control, Communication, and Signal Processing (EBCCSP), 1–7.
    1. Canny J. (1986). A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 8, 679–698.10.1109/TPAMI.1986.4767851 - DOI - PubMed