skip to main content
10.1145/3394171.3413748acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Exploiting Active Learning in Novel Refractive Error Detection with Smartphones

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 October 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Refractive errors, such as myopia and astigmatism, can lead to severe visual impairment if not detected and corrected in time. Traditional methods of refractive error diagnosis rely on well-trained optometrists operating expensive and importable devices, constraining the vision screening process. Advance in smartphone camera has enabled novel low-cost ubiquitous vision screening to detect refractive error or ametropia through eye image processing, based on the principle of photorefraction. However, contemporary smartphone-based methods rely heavily on hand-crafted features and sufficiency of well-labeled data. To address these challenges, this paper exploits active learning methods with a set of Convolutional Neural Network features encoding information of human eyes from pre-trained gaze estimation model. This enables more effective training on refractive error detection models with less labeled data. Our experimental results demonstrate the encouraging effectiveness of our active learning approach. The new set of features is able to attain screening accuracy of more than 80% with mean absolute error less than 0.66, meeting the expectation of optometrists for 0.5 to 1. The proposed active learning also requires significantly fewer training samples of 18% in achieving satisfactory performance.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3394171.3413748.mp4

mp4

7.6 MB

References

  1. Robert W Arnold, James W O'Neil, Kim L Cooper, David I Silbert, and Sean P Donahue. 2018. Evaluation of a smartphone photoscreening app to detect refractive amblyopia risk factors in children aged 1--6 years. Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, NZ), Vol. 12 (2018), 1533.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ujjwal Baid, Bhakti Baheti, Prasad Dutande, and Sanjay Talbar. 2019. Detection of Pathological Myopia and Optic Disc Segmentation with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In TENCON 2019--2019 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON). IEEE, 1345--1350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. William H Beluch, Tim Genewein, Andreas Nürnberger, and Jan M Köhler. 2018. The power of ensembles for active learning in image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 9368--9377.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. WR Bobier and OJ Braddick. 1985. Eccentric photorefraction: optical analysis and empirical measures. American journal of optometry and physiological optics, Vol. 62, 9 (1985), 614--620.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Leo Breiman. 1996. Bagging predictors. Machine learning, Vol. 24, 2 (1996), 123--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Gulcan Can, Yassir Benkhedda, and Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2018. Ambiance in social media venues: visual cue interpretation by machines and crowds. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 2363--2372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Osbert YC Chan, Marion Edwards, and Brian Brown. 1996. Calibration and validity of an eccentric photorefractor. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Vol. 16, 3 (1996), 203--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Chih-Chung Chang and Chih-Jen Lin. 2011. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology (TIST), Vol. 2, 3 (2011), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Fouzi Douak, Farid Melgani, Edoardo Pasolli, and Nabil Benoudjit. 2012. SVR active learning for product quality control. In 2012 11th International Conference on Information Science, Signal Processing and their Applications (ISSPA). IEEE, 1113--1117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Yoav Freund and Robert E Schapire. 1995. A desicion-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. In European conference on computational learning theory. Springer, 23--37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yarin Gal, Riashat Islam, and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2017. Deep bayesian active learning with image data. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70. JMLR. org, 1183--1192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Howard C Howland. 1985. Optics of photoretinoscopy: results from ray tracing. American journal of optometry and physiological optics, Vol. 62, 9 (1985), 621--625.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. OA Hunt, JS Wolffsohn, and B Gilmartin. 2003. Evaluation of the measurement of refractive error by the PowerRefractor: a remote, continuous and binocular measurement system of oculomotor function. British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 87, 12 (2003), 1504--1508.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Rebecca Hwa. 2004. Sample selection for statistical parsing. Computational linguistics, Vol. 30, 3 (2004), 253--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kari Kaakinen and VEIKKO TOMMILA. 1979. A clinical study on the detection of strabismus, anisometropia or ametropia of children by simultaneous photography of the corneal and the fundus reflexes. Acta ophthalmologica, Vol. 57, 4 (1979), 600--611.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kyle Krafka, Aditya Khosla, Petr Kellnhofer, Harini Kannan, Suchendra Bhandarkar, Wojciech Matusik, and Antonio Torralba. 2016. Eye tracking for everyone. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2176--2184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Tiffany CK Kwok, Naomi CM Shum, Grace Ngai, Hong Va Leong, Grace Amy Tseng, Hoi-yi Choi, Ka-yan Mak, and Chi-Wai Do. 2015. Democratizing Optometric Care: A Vision-Based, Data-Driven Approach to Automatic Refractive Error Measurement for Vision Screening. In 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM). IEEE, 7--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Chen Liang, Jianbo Ye, Shuting Wang, Bart Pursel, and C Lee Giles. 2018. Investigating active learning for concept prerequisite learning. In Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Naoki Abe Hiroshi Mamitsuka et almbox. 1998. Query learning strategies using boosting and bagging. In Machine learning: proceedings of the fifteenth international conference (ICML'98), Vol. 1. Morgan Kaufmann Pub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Prem Melville and Raymond J Mooney. 2004. Diverse ensembles for active learning. In Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning. 74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. AC Molteno, J Hoare-Nairne, JC Parr, Anne Simpson, IJ Hodgkinson, NE O'Brien, and SD Watts. 1983. The Otago photoscreener, a method for the mass screening of infants to detect squint and refractive errors. Transactions of the Ophthalmological Society of New Zealand, Vol. 35 (1983), 43--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Seonwook Park, Adrian Spurr, and Otmar Hilliges. 2018a. Deep pictorial gaze estimation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). 721--738.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Seonwook Park, Xucong Zhang, Andreas Bulling, and Otmar Hilliges. 2018b. Learning to find eye region landmarks for remote gaze estimation in unconstrained settings. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications. 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Donatella Pascolini and Silvio Paolo Mariotti. 2012. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. British Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 96, 5 (2012), 614--618.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. M M. W Peterseim, R. S Rhodes, R. N Patel, M E. Wilson, L. E Edmondson, S. A Logan, E. W Cheeseman, E. Shortridge, and R. H Trivedi. 2018. Effectiveness of the GoCheck Kids vision screener in detecting amblyopia risk factors. American journal of ophthalmology, Vol. 187 (2018), 87--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Michael X Repka, Raymond T Kraker, Jonathan M Holmes, Allison I Summers, Stephen R Glaser, Carmen N Barnhardt, and David R Tien. 2014. Atropine vs patching for treatment of moderate amblyopia: follow-up at 15 years of age of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA ophthalmology, Vol. 132, 7 (2014), 799--805.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Clara I Sánchez, Meindert Niemeijer, Michael D Abràmoff, and Bram van Ginneken. 2010. Active learning for an efficient training strategy of computer-aided diagnosis systems: application to diabetic retinopathy screening. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 603--610.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Frank Schaeffel, Howard C Howland, and Leslie Farkas. 1986. Natural accommodation in the growing chicken. Vision Research, Vol. 26, 12 (1986), 1977--1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Ramprasaath R Selvaraju, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Michael Cogswell, Devi Parikh, and Dhruv Batra. 2016. Grad-CAM: Why did you say that? arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.07450 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Burr Settles. 2009. Active learning literature survey. Technical Report. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Burr Settles and Mark Craven. 2008. An analysis of active learning strategies for sequence labeling tasks. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1070--1079.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Amy L Sheppard and Leon N Davies. 2010. Clinical evaluation of the Grand Seiko auto ref/keratometer WAM-5500. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Vol. 30, 2 (2010), 143--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Jennifer Vandoni, Emanuel Aldea, and Sylvie Le Hégarat-Mascle. 2019. Evidential query-by-committee active learning for pedestrian detection in high-density crowds. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 104 (2019), 166--184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Avinash V Varadarajan, Ryan Poplin, Katy Blumer, Christof Angermueller, Joe Ledsam, Reena Chopra, Pearse A Keane, Greg S Corrado, Lily Peng, and Dale R Webster. 2018. Deep learning for predicting refractive error from retinal fundus images. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, Vol. 59, 7 (2018), 2861--2868.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Xuehan Xiong and Fernando De la Torre. 2013. Supervised descent method and its applications to face alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 532--539.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Xucong Zhang, Yusuke Sugano, Mario Fritz, and Andreas Bulling. 2017. Mpiigaze: Real-world dataset and deep appearance-based gaze estimation. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, Vol. 41, 1 (2017), 162--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Bolei Zhou, Aditya Khosla, Agata Lapedriza, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. 2016. Learning deep features for discriminative localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2921--2929.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Exploiting Active Learning in Novel Refractive Error Detection with Smartphones

      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 Conferences
        MM '20: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia
        October 2020
        4889 pages
        ISBN:9781450379885
        DOI:10.1145/3394171

        Copyright © 2020 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 October 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate995of4,171submissions,24%

        Upcoming Conference

        MM '24
        MM '24: The 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia
        October 28 - November 1, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader