Research Article

COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS

Volume: 12 Number: 1 March 1, 2024
TR EN

COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS

Abstract

Edge detection is one of the challenging problems in image processing. Four different classical edge detection methods—Sobel, Prewitt, Roberts, and Canny—and type-1 and type-2 fuzzy logic-based edge detection methods are applied to analyze two separate datasets with various properties. The datasets are STARE which contains medical images of the retina and BIPED which contains images of the street. Furthermore, two separate hybrid fuzzy logic methods are implemented. The type-1 and type-2 fuzzy inference techniques are combined to produce the hybrid-1 and hybrid-2 approaches, using the "AND" and "OR" logic operators. We compare the simulation results for each technique using three different image quality metrics. These are Mean Square Error (MSE), Peak Signal Noise Ratio (PSNR), and Structural Similarity Index (SSIM). The type-2 fuzzy technique outperformed the hybrid-1 fuzzy method in visual quality metrics comparison, demonstrating superior blood vessel recognition on the STARE retinal image dataset—a dataset that more closely resembles the human visual system. Using the BIPED street image dataset, the hybrid-1 fuzzy approach outperformed the Roberts method. The hybrid-1 fuzzy technique showed good results in the second order for both kinds of datasets. Any data and general applications can take advantage of it.

Keywords

References

  1. S. Yunhong, Y. Shilei, Z. Xiaojing, and Y. Jinhua, “Edge Detection Algorithm of MRI Medical Image Based on Artificial Neural Network,” in Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier B.V., 2022, pp. 136–144. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.10.021.
  2. M. C. Shin, D. B. Goldgof, and K. W. Bowyer, “Comparison of edge detector performance through use in an object recognition task,” Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 160–178, 2001, doi: 10.1006/cviu.2001.0932.
  3. C. I. Gonzalez, P. Melin, and O. Castillo, “Edge detection method based on general type-2 fuzzy logic applied to color images,” Information (Switzerland), vol. 8, no. 3, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.3390/info8030104.
  4. P. Melin, O. Mendoza, and O. Castillo, “An improved method for edge detection based on interval type-2 fuzzy logic,” Expert Syst Appl, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 8527–8535, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.05.023.
  5. Y. Becerikli and T. M. Karan, “LNCS 3512 - A New Fuzzy Approach for Edge Detection,” in LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 2005, pp. 943–951.
  6. L. Hu, H. D. Cheng, and M. Zhang, “A high performance edge detector based on fuzzy inference rules,” Inf Sci (N Y), vol. 177, no. 21, pp. 4768–4784, Nov. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2007.04.001.
  7. M. E. Yüksel, “Edge detection in noisy images by neuro-fuzzy processing,” AEU - International Journal of Electronics and Communications, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 82–89, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.aeue.2006.02.006.
  8. C. C. Kang and W. J. Wang, “A novel edge detection method based on the maximizing objective function,” Pattern Recognit, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 609–618, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2006.03.016.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Engineering

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

March 1, 2024

Submission Date

May 15, 2022

Acceptance Date

February 2, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 12 Number: 1

APA
Ozdemir, G. (2024). COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS. Konya Journal of Engineering Sciences, 12(1), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.1116833
AMA
1.Ozdemir G. COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS. KONJES. 2024;12(1):177-191. doi:10.36306/konjes.1116833
Chicago
Ozdemir, Gulcihan. 2024. “COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS”. Konya Journal of Engineering Sciences 12 (1): 177-91. https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.1116833.
EndNote
Ozdemir G (March 1, 2024) COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS. Konya Journal of Engineering Sciences 12 1 177–191.
IEEE
[1]G. Ozdemir, “COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS”, KONJES, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 177–191, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.36306/konjes.1116833.
ISNAD
Ozdemir, Gulcihan. “COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS”. Konya Journal of Engineering Sciences 12/1 (March 1, 2024): 177-191. https://doi.org/10.36306/konjes.1116833.
JAMA
1.Ozdemir G. COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS. KONJES. 2024;12:177–191.
MLA
Ozdemir, Gulcihan. “COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS”. Konya Journal of Engineering Sciences, vol. 12, no. 1, Mar. 2024, pp. 177-91, doi:10.36306/konjes.1116833.
Vancouver
1.Gulcihan Ozdemir. COMPARISON OF CLASSICAL AND FUZZY EDGE DETECTION METHODS. KONJES. 2024 Mar. 1;12(1):177-91. doi:10.36306/konjes.1116833

Cited By