Bibliography

Next: About this document ... Up: Digital Morse Theory With Suggested Applications Previous: 9. Bibliography

Bibliography

1: H. Rusinek, M. E. Noz, G. Q. M. Jr., A. Kalvin, B. Haddad, D. Dean, and C. Cutting, ``Quantitative and Qualitative Comparison of Volumetric and Surface Rendering Techniques,'' IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 38, pp. 659-662, Apr. 1991.
2: L. DeFloriani and E. Puppo, ``Hierarchical Triangulation for Multireslution Surface Description,'' ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 14, pp. 363-411, Oct. 1995.
3: J. J. Benedetto and M. W. Frazier, Wavelets: Mathematics and Applicationss.
Boca Raton, Florida: CRC PRess, 1994.
4: M. Goresky and R. MacPherson, Stratified Morse Theory, vol. 14 of Series3, A Series of Modern Surveys In Mathematics.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
5: D. B. Karron and J. Cox, ``Extracting 3D objects from volume data using digital morse theory,'' in Computer Vision, Virtual Reality and Robotics in Medicine (N. Ayache, ed.), no. 905 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (New York, NY), pp. 481-486, INRIA, INSERM, ECV net, Springer-Verlag, 1995.
6: G. M. Nielson and B. Hamann, ``The Asymptotic Decider: Resolving the Ambiguity in Marching Cubes,'' in Proceedings of Visualization 91 (G. M. Nielson and L. Rosenblum, eds.), vol. 2, pp. 83-91, 1991.
7: H. E. Cline, C. L. Dumoulin, H. R. H. Jr., and W. E. Lorensen, ``3D Reconstruction of the Brain from Magnetic Resonance Images Using a Connectivity Algorithm,'' Magnetic Resonance Imaging, vol. 5, pp. 345-352, July 1987.
8: H. E. Cline and W. E. Lorensen, ``System and method for the display of surface structures contained within the interior region of a solid body.'' United States Patent Number 4,710,876, 1987.
9: H. E. Cline, W. E. Lorensen, S. Ludke, and B. C. T. C. R. Crawford, ``Two Algorithms for the Reconstruction of Surfaces from Tomograms,'' Medical Physics, vol. 15, pp. 320-327, May 1988.
10: W. E. Lorensen and H. E. Cline, ``Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm,'' ACM Computer Graphics, vol. 21, pp. 163-169, July 1987.
11: G. Herman, Geometry of Digital Spaces.
Boston: Birkhauser, 1998.
12: G. T. Herman, ``Oriented Surfaces in Digital Spaces,'' CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing, vol. 55, pp. 381-396, Sept. 1993.
13: G. T. Herman and E. Zhao, ``Jordan Surfaces in Simply Connected Digital Spaces,'' Journal of Math. Imaging and Vision, vol. 6, pp. 121 - 138, 1996.
14: D. Karron, J. Cox, and B. Mishra, ``System and Method for Surface Rendering of Internal Structures within the Interior of a Solid Object. .'' U.S. Patent application submitted, approval pending, Apr. 1993.
15: J. L. Cox, D. B. Karron, and B. Mishra, ``The SpiderWeb Algorithm for Surface Construction from Medical Volume Data: Geometric Properties of its Surface,'' Innovations Et Technologie en Biologie et Medecine, vol. 14, pp. 634-656, Nov. 1993.
16: D. B. Karron, ``The ``SpiderWeb'' algorithm for surface construction in noisy volume data,'' in Visualization in Biomedical Computing '92 (R. A. Robb, ed.), vol. 1808, pp. 462-576, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, 1992.
17: D. Karron, ``The ``SpiderWeb'' Surface Construction Algorithm for Building Triangle Mesh Surfaces in Noisy Volume Data,'' in Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (J. P. Morucci, R. Plonsey, J. L. Coatrieux, and S. Laxminarayan, eds.), vol. 14, (Piscataway, NJ), pp. 2084-2086, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1992.
18: D. Karron and J. Cox, ``Mathematical Analysis of ``SpiderWeb'' Surface Construction Algorithm,'' in Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (J. P. Morucci, R. Plonsey, J. L. Coatrieux, and S. Laxminarayan, eds.), vol. 14, (Piscataway, NJ), pp. 1250-1252, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 1992.
19: J. C. Latombe, Robot motion planning.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.
20: H. Takeda and J. C. Latombe, ``Planning the motions of a mobile robot in a sensory uncertainty field,'' tech. rep., Stanford University Technical Report, 1991.
21: D. Koditschek, ``Exact robot navigation by means of potential functions,'' in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics Automat., July 1987.
22: J. Barraquand and J. C. Latombe, ``A Monte-Carlo algorithm for path planning with many degrees of freedom,'' in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1712-1717, July 1990.
23: J. Barraquand and J. C. Latombe, ``Robot motion planning: A distributed representation approach,'' tech. rep., Stanford University Department of Computer Science, 1988.
24: L. Vincent and P. Soille, ``Watersheds in digital spaces: an efficient algorithm based on immersion simulations,'' IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 13, pp. 583-598, June 1991.
25: M. Baccar, L. A. Gee, R. C. Gonzalez, and M. A. Abidi, ``Segmentation of range images via data fusion and morphological watersheds,'' Pattern Recognition, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1671-1687, 1996.
26: B. P. Dobrin, T. Viero, and M. Gabbouj, ``Fast watershed algorithms: analysis and extensions,'' in Nonlinear Image Processing V, vol. 2180 of SPIE Proceedings, (San Jose, California), pp. 209-220, 1994.
27: S. Beucher and C. Lantuéjoul, ``Use of watersheds in contour detection,'' in International Workshop on Image Processing, Real-Time Edge and Motion Detection/Estimation, (Rennes, France), 1979.
28: S. Beucher and F. Meyer, ``The morphological approach to segmentation: the watershed transformation,'' in Mathematical Morphology in Image Processing (E. R. Dougherty, ed.), ch. 12, pp. 433-481, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1993.
29: S. Beucher, ``Watersheds of functions and picture segmentation,'' in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, (Paris), pp. 1928-1931, May 1982.
30: D. Hagyard, M. Razaz, and A. P, ``Analysis of watershed algorithms for greyscale images,'' in Proceedings of International Conference on Image Processing, no. 3, (NJ), pp. 41-44, IEEE, IEEE, Sept. 1996.
31: W. J. Schroeder, J. A. Zarge, and W. E. Lorensen, ``Decimation of triangle meshes,'' ACM Computer Graphics, vol. 26, pp. 65-70, July 1992.

**Table 1:** Table of criticalities in figures 19 through 24.
$\begin{table} % latex2html id marker 783\begin{centering} \begin{tabularx}{\li... ... 5 & 2 & 50 & MIN & Vertex & \\ \hline \end{tabularx}\end{centering}\end{table}$

**Figure 1:** An interpolated level set with simple topology.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure01.eps,width=3.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 2:** Extra topological complications not directly implied by the data.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure02.eps,width=3.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 3:** The possible arrangements of Highs on a face, with boundary contours.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure03.eps,width=3.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 4:** Components of $\bf{X}_{f}^{\geq \tau}$ defined by edge-connected sets of Highs. Note this implies that the point p satisfies $f(p) < \tau$ .
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure04.eps,width=3.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 5:** Inconsistent results when we interpolate components of $\bf{X}_{-f}^{> - \tau}$ defined by edge-connected sets of Highs. The point p satisfies $-f(p) \leq -\tau$ and thus $f(p) \geq \tau$ , contradicting the previous figure.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure05.eps,width=3.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 6:** Knit High above, Knit Low below: Initially there are two separate objects.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure06.eps,width=2.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 7:** The two objects touch at the disambiguation value.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure07.eps,width=2.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 8:** The two objects have merged.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure08.eps,width=2.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 9:** The entire 4-hit face is engulfed.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure09.eps,width=2.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 10:** Illustration of nomenclature for 4-hit face disambiguation.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure10.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 11:** The disambiguation point and value (for 2 dimensions) via linear interpolation across the face.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure11.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 12:** A Vertex Local Maximum: at thresholds above 20 there is no object, below 20 there is one object
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure21.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 13:** A Local Minimum Critical Point: at thresholds above 10 there is a hole, below 10 the hole vanishes.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure22.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 14:** A Saddle Critical Point on a vertex: at thresholds above 20 there are two local objects, below 20 the two local objects merge.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure23.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 15:** A Critical 4-hit Face Saddle Critical Point.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure24.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 16:** A local maximum critical set, where region S has the constant value of 100.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure25.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 17:** A local minimum critical set, again where region S has the constant value of 100.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure26.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 18:** A Saddle Critical Set. Again region S has the constant value of 100.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure27.eps,width=3in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 19:** Criticalities in the dataset (see table 1 for the critical values).
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure36.eps,width=\linewidth}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 20:** Zones of the 5 maxima shown Initially.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure37.eps,width=\linewidth}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 21:** Zone of the criticality g has been added.
$\begin{figure} \epsfig {figure=figure38.eps,width=\linewidth}\end{figure}$

**Figure 22:** Zone of criticality h has been added
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure39.eps,width=\linewidth}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 23:** Zones of saddles i and j. At this point the objects have merged into one object with two holes. The two remaining criticalities are the minima k and l. Zone of k will include all remaining points with value greater than 50 and zone of l will include all the remaining points.
$\begin{figure} \epsfig {figure=figure40.eps,width=\linewidth}\end{figure}$

**Figure 24:** Criticality graph associated with the dataset.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure41.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 25:** Spinning one triangle in a cube face.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure28.eps,width=2in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 26:** Illustration of a simple corner intersection of a surface with a cube. Note that each of the three faces have two hits. Each pair of hits in a face is connected back to the Articulation point. The Articulation point (center of moment of the three grouped hits, corresponding to one surface and one criticality beyond) is used to knit three triangles.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure29.eps,width=2in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 27:** Illustration of a surface intersecting the waist of a cube, passing through the center of the cube, instead of passing through a corner.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure30.eps,width=2in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 28:** Two examples of two separate surfaces passing through the corners of a cube. The left cube has a surface cutting through the two front faces of the cube. The right cube has a surface passing through the front surface, and another, possibly separate surface passing through the back face of the cube.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure31.eps,width=\linewidth}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 29:** Triangle edge from AP to h is shared by two triangles, defined by the hits adjacent to h in each of the cube faces that shares the hit. These two hits are g and g'.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure32.eps,width=3.0in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 30:** The triangle edge connecting two adjacent hits is shared by the two triangles defined by an articulation point in each of the two cubes that share the face on which the hits occur.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure33.eps,width=2in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 31:** Overhead view of the eight edges emanating from a central hit point, into the 4 shared cubes. Each X marks a hit.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure34.eps,width=2in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 32:** Cyclical enumeration of edges from AP to hits on the cube faces.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=figure35.eps,width=2in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 33:** Illustration of critical and non-critical 4-hit faces. The 3 cube faces represent two adjacent cubes with the shared face a 4-hit face. In each example the face of the top cube is outside the level set, and we show the 3 faces above and below the disambiguation value (D.V.). The solid figure represents the level set object(s), up to topological equivalence, through the bottom cube. This is not a critical 4-hit face.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig {figure=dmt1.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 34:** The shared face is not a critical 4-hit face, because the two Highs are already part of the component in the bottom cube above the D.V.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig{figure=dmt2.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 35:** The shared face is not a critical 4-hit face, because the two Highs are already part of the component in the bottom cube above the D.V.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig{figure=dmt3.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 36:** The shared face is a critical 4-hit face, because the two Highs are not part of the component in the bottom cube above the D.V.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig{figure=dmt4.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 37:** The shared face is a critical 4-hit face, because the two Highs are not part of the component in the bottom cube above the D.V.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig{figure=dmt5.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 38:** The shared face is a critical 4-hit face, because the two Highs are not part of the component in the bottom cube above the D.V.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig{figure=dmt6.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

**Figure 39:** The shared face is a critical 4-hit face, because the two Highs are not part of the component in the bottom cube above the D.V.
$\begin{figure} \begin{centering} \epsfig{figure=dmt7.eps,width=4in}\end{centering}\end{figure}$

Next: About this document ... Up: Digital Morse Theory With Suggested Applications Previous: 9. Bibliography

Super-User
1999-04-13