↓ Skip to main content

Topology-aware illumination design for volume rendering

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Topology-aware illumination design for volume rendering
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1177-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianlong Zhou, Xiuying Wang, Hui Cui, Peng Gong, Xianglin Miao, Yalin Miao, Chun Xiao, Fang Chen, Dagan Feng

Abstract

Direct volume rendering is one of flexible and effective approaches to inspect large volumetric data such as medical and biological images. In conventional volume rendering, it is often time consuming to set up a meaningful illumination environment. Moreover, conventional illumination approaches usually assign same values of variables of an illumination model to different structures manually and thus neglect the important illumination variations due to structure differences. We introduce a novel illumination design paradigm for volume rendering on the basis of topology to automate illumination parameter definitions meaningfully. The topological features are extracted from the contour tree of an input volumetric data. The automation of illumination design is achieved based on four aspects of attenuation, distance, saliency, and contrast perception. To better distinguish structures and maximize illuminance perception differences of structures, a two-phase topology-aware illuminance perception contrast model is proposed based on the psychological concept of Just-Noticeable-Difference. The proposed approach allows meaningful and efficient automatic generations of illumination in volume rendering. Our results showed that our approach is more effective in depth and shape depiction, as well as providing higher perceptual differences between structures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Lecturer 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 1 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 13%
Psychology 1 13%
Unknown 4 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,788
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,871
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,792
of 343,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#109
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.