2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS) Proceedings

ISBN: 978-1-4799-8283-7

A Semi-Automated Food Voting Classification

System: Combining User Interaction
and Support Vector Machines
Patrick McAllister1, Huiru Zheng1, Raymond Bond1, Anne Moorhead2
School of Computing and Mathematics1
School of Communication2
Ulster University, Jordanstown
BT37, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland

Abstract — Obesity is prevalent worldwide including UK and
Ireland, affecting all demographics. Obesity can have a
detrimental affect on an individual’s health, which can lead to
chronic conditions. Different digital interventions have enabled
users to photograph food items to be identified using different
feature extraction methods. In this research, we proposed a system
that allows users to draw a polygon around a food item for
segmentation. After segmented, the region is then classified using
an automated voting system. Different features will then be
extracted from the specified area. Support Vector Machines will
be issued for each feature type. This system is a proof-of-concept
and is designed to research the effectiveness of employing multiple
feature detection algorithms to classify food images. To classify
food regions a Bag-of-features (BoFs) approach will be used for
each. Speeded Up Robust Features point detection and descriptors
was used along with colour spatial features, and also MSER region
detection with SURF. Each of these methods will have their own
BoF to train an SVM. The aim of this research was to create a
voting classification system that utilises each feature detection
algorithm to ultimately identify the segmented food region
through plurality (or majority) vote. Testing showed that the
system achieved 75% accuracy when combining each feature SVM
to create a voting system. The system outperforms two of the
feature classifiers (SURF and MSER with SURF). LAB colour
classifier slightly outperformed the voting mechanism within the
developed system. In regards to future work, further development
and testing would be completed through increasing the variety of
food items used in the training phase and a larger test dataset
would also be used.
Keywords— Bag-of-features; classification; SURF; features;
predict; semi-automated; voting;
I. INTRODUCTION
Obesity is prevalent worldwide throughout UK and Ireland
[1, 2]. Obesity affects all age groups and brings with it various
chronic conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease,
and certain types of cancers [3]. Research has shown that
children who are obese have a greater chance of being obese
when they are adults [4]. Digital interventions are becoming
more and more ubiquitous. There has been an increase of calorie
monitoring applications. For these applications, users must
remember exact portion sizes to obtain nutritional content. This
method can cause several issues in regards to accuracy. The user
can miscalculate food portion size. To tackle this issue, image
calorie and food identification techniques have been employed
to determine food items and content in images.
II. RELATED WORK
Different methods were employed to identify food. In [5],
SURF is incorporated with BoFs and colour histogram
extraction is used to identify foods within an image. To extract
separate food items for classification, Grubcut [5] was used.
Results in [5] research show an 81.55% accuracy result using
these methods. In [6], SURF and colour features were used to
determine different food types and results show 86% precision
and 83% recall. In [7], a food recognition system that utilised an
optimised version of bag-of-words was created. This research
involved collating and organising a visual dataset of 5000
images into categories. Local features were collated to build a
visual dictionary. The system achieves 78% accuracy. In other
research [8], colour segmentation, texture segmentation, and K-
means clustering were utilised to segment foods and feature
extraction used to classify foods with SVM. In [8] using all
feature extraction methods achieved accuracy of 92.21. In this
research, we offer a method in which users are able to manually
draw around a food item segmentation and identification.
In [9], SIFT was investigated in combination with colour
descriptors. Accuracy rate combining different feature
descriptors, including SIFT, was 82.8%. Other research [10]
utilises SIFT descriptors along with colour histograms in order
to identify food items, this research utilises a SVM approach for
each method (colour histogram and SIFT features) to classify
major food types. In [11] SURF was used along with other
interest and blob detectors such as MSER and STAR to extract
information from videos using a bag-of-words model. The
system aims to identify food portions and estimate calorie
content. Results show in [11] that SURF achieved 95%
accuracy rating. The aim of this research is to combine different

2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS) Page 1 of 7

feature detection and descriptors to create a voting
classification system. This research will use a semi-automated
approach in that users will be able to draw around a food portion
within an image for classification.
III. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this work is to combine computer vision
feature detection algorithms to identify food items within an
image. The aim is to utilise a semi-automated approach that will
allow users to highlight the food items within the image using
a polygonal tool. The highlighted portion of the image will be
cropped and analysed by feature detection algorithms. A voting
mechanism will be used by using plurality from each of the
feature detection algorithms. The most popular tag outputted
from the algorithms will be the final classification label for the
food item. The system will then be tested against a number of
images to measure the accuracy of the system to find out if
multiple feature detection algorithms is beneficial in identifying
food items in images.
IV. METHODS
This section will discuss the methods used in developing the
system. The work proposed in this paper uses images as a way
to document food logging through using computer vision
methods. Much of the popular food logging applications require
the user to manually input the food item using a local or online
database. This process can be cumbersome for some users. The
research in this paper proposes a method to document food
intake by using computer vision technologies by allowing the
user to draw around the food item within the image to then be
classified. A number of feature detection algorithms will be
used and each will have their own SVM. The purpose of using
multiple feature detection algorithms is to find out if there is an
increase in overall accuracy in correctly classifying food items
through incorporating a voting classification mechanism. This
section will discuss the following approaches; (a) BoF, (b)
SURF, (c) Colour features, (d) MSER features and (e) K-means
clustering, (f) SVM, (g) Semi-automated approach, and (h)
voting classification.
A. Bag-of-Features
A BoF (Bag of Features) approach was used for each feature
type extracted [12]. A dataset consisting of different food
images was collected. Each of these images was categorised
into a particular class. These images could then be used for
training and validation sets. For training the classification
system, the features were extracted from the training dataset.
Each feature type was extracted from the same dataset
consecutively to build a visual dictionary. Features are clustered
to obtain a collection of key features (i.e. a visual dictionary),
which can be used to classify test images. To extract features
from the training image set, both Scale Invariant Transform
Features (SIFT) and SURF methods were considered as key
point detectors. SURF was selected for detecting key points due
to its advantage in greater speed when compared to the slower
execution of SIFT. In addition, SURF is also scale and
rotational invariant [13]. SURF utilises integral images in order
to decrease computational time. SURF point selection was
assigned to ‘detector’ as opposed to utilising a ‘grid’ layout.
The grid method takes much longer in comparison to detector
method [14]. It was also decided that a colour features were
2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS)
needed to increase information gain and accuracy of the
classification system. Maximally Stable Extreme Regions
(MSER) were also used along with SURF feature extraction.
The dataset contained 4 categories. Each category represented
a different vegetable. The images were collated through taking
images with a smartphone, Flickr images, and images obtained
through Google’s free to use
image search.
B. SURF Features
SURF method differs from SIFT as it operates using a
Hessian matrix for identifying interest points. SURF utilises
BLOB (binary large object) detection to attain interest points.
BLOB elements are detected at different locations where the
determinant of Hessian is set at maximum. [13] The determinant
of Hessian is also used for scale selection [13]. The Hessian
matrix at a point, x in an image I is defined in equation (1).
௫௫ ሺ ǡ ሻ ௫௬ ሺ ǡ ሻ
࣢ǡ  ൌ 
௫௬ ሺ ǡ ሻ ௬௬ ሺ ǡ ሻ
(1)
௫௫  ǡ ǡ ௫௬  ǡ  and ௬௬ ሺ ǡ ሻ represent the
convolution of the Gaussian second order derivative with image
I at point x [4]. SURF uses Hessian matrix and integral images
to allow for fast approximations. Convolutions are expedited
using integral images. An integral image at a specific location
represents the sum of all the pixels within an input image with a
region as stated in (2) [9, 11].
ǡ  ൌ ǡ  ൅  െ ͳǡ  ൅ ǡ  െ ͳ െ ሺ െ ͳǡ  െ ͳሻ
(2)
ǡ  represents a point within a rectangular region. The
remaining points  െ ͳǡ , ǡ  െ ͳ, and  ሺ െ ͳǡ  െ ͳሻ
represent the other points in the rectangular region. This process
only requires three operations to calculate the value of the
region [11]. Within this system SURF feature vector was
increased to 128 elements. This means that a SURF descriptor
size of 128 would enable greater accuracy when matching
features.
C. Colour Features
Colour features were extracted from the training dataset to
increase the classification accuracy. Each within the training set
was converted to LAB colour space. Converting RGB images
to LAB colour space enables colour values to be efficiently
quantified. This would make the process easier to distinguish
between different colours. The next step is to compute the
average colour value using pixel blocks. This is achieved by
reducing the size of images by a factor of 16. In doing this,
colour is analysed and extracted over 16 x 16 blocks. The colour
feature that was extracted from the image is augmented by
appending the XY location from the original image. This
process takes into account the layout of the colour features
situated around the original image [15]. Once the features are
extracted, K-means clustering is then used with the features to
create the visual dictionary.
D. Maximally Stable Extreme Regions (MSER)
MSER Detector is a blob detector algorithm used with
images. The regions within this blob detector are classed as an
extremal element of the intensity function [17]. MSER is able
to extract different regions from an image. These regions are
Page 2 of 7
called MSER [16]. MSER is described as being a stable region produce a confusion matrix for each of the feature type
detector due to a number of advantages. MSER is invariant to classification tests and describe how accurate the feature
affine transformation intensities. MSER is stable as detected extraction and descriptor methods were in assigning image
regions remain unaffected across different thresholds. Also categories to test data. Once the initial confusion matrix is
MSER is able to be detected across different scales. In this work generated from each feature type classifier, the results can be
MSER is used as a blob detector and the MSER object is passed analysed to generate accuracy performance ratings as well as
to the SURF descriptor to extract SURF features [17]. sensitivity performance ratings. Further tests will also be
conducted using the voting classification system. A series of
E. K-means Clustering images will be collated and be used to test the accuracy of
K-means clustering is used to cluster features around theproposed system. These images were taken with a
centroid data points. K-means clustering is the process of Smartphone and have not been used within the training classifier
partitioning data into clusters and to determine the centroid point stage to train the SVM. The accuracy was determined for each
for each k cluster. Data points are then assigned to a key centroid confusion matrix. The accuracy is determined by equation (3).
point in relation to this distance. This process is used to obtain Once the classifiers have been trained using the different
visual dictionary consisting of visual words [17]. feature extraction methods, it was decided to test each feature
F. SVM Classifier classifier using a series of validation images. This process would
produce a confusion matrix for each of the feature type
The key features are then encoded for each category to train classification tests and describe how accurate the feature
a SVM multiclass classifier. The SVM has several parameters extraction and descriptor methods were in assigning image
that are defined to optimise the classification of images. To train categories to test data. Once the initial confusion matrix is
the SVM classifier, different parameters were configured. Data generated from each feature type classifier, the results can be
standardisation was enforced to standardise predictors. For data analysed to generate accuracy performance ratings as well as
optimization, SMO (Sequential Minimal Optimisation) was sensitivity performance ratings. Further tests will also be
used. conducted using the voting classification system. A series of
images will be collated and be used to test the accuracy of the
G. Semi-Automated Approach
proposed system. These images were taken with a Smartphone
The system is described semi-automatic given a user is and have not been used within the training classifier stage to
required to manually draw a polygon around a food item. We train the SVM. The accuracy was determined for each confusion
hypothesis that this man-machine approach will increase the matrix. The accuracy is determined by equation (3).
accuracy of the system given a user assists the system in
locating the food; the system is subsequently responsible for its
classification. This will ultimately lead to greater calorie
estimation. This system will utilise the semi-automatic
approach to accurately pinpoint food boundary areas by using a
polygon tool. Once the SVM classifier has been trained, the
system can then be used to categorise unseen images. In order
to train the algorithm, training sets were partitioned from the
overall dataset. The training image set contained a mixture of
images of food items downloaded from Flickr as well as
photographs captured using a camera on a smartphone. The
main use of this classifier would be used on a region specified
by the user. This area would be classified as opposed to
classifying the entire image.
H. Voting Classification
Once the features have been extracted from training sets and
encoded within each SVM (as described in Fig. 2), the classifier,
for each feature type, is able to categorise test images. The
system operates using a voting majority mechanism. When
classifers for each feature type catergorise an image the result is
then saved to an array. This is completed for each feature type
and the resulting array will consist of three food type labels. The
array is then analysed to find out the most common label. The
results is then outputted to the user. This voting classification
system is able to analyse the user segmented area with a variety
of different feature extraction methods. SURF, colour
extraction, and MSER detection with SURF descriptors are used Fig. 1. Diagram Describing Feature Extraction Processes.
to classify the segmented area to increase information gain and
to promote accuracy. The voting classification process is
described in Fig. 3. ሺ  ൅ ሻ
 ൌ
ሺ  ൅  ൅  ൅ ሻ
Once the classifiers have been trained using the different
(3)
feature extraction methods, it was decided to test each feature
classifier using a series of validation images. This process would

2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS) Page 3 of 7

 This equation (3) describes how an accuracy rating could be
obtained for a two class problem. This equation is a
generalisation as the confusion matrix for each classification test
would hold up to four classes. TN represents true negative and
TP represents true positive. TP would represent the number of
images that were correctly classified. FP and FN represent the
number of items that were classified as positive incorrectly and
negative incorrectly. In order to assess the precision rating for
each confusion matrix the following equation will be utilised.

   ൌ
 ൅ 
(4)
This equation (4) was used to find the percentage of
predictions that were labelled correctly under each category. The
accuracy was computed for the overall confusion matrix and the
precision was computed for each classification category. After
the precision was calculated for each category the overall
precision average was calculated. The next section lists the
confusion matrix accuracy and precision for each feature type
classification. It is important to note that this testing phase
classified entire food images without using semi-automated
approach. After the initial testing for each classification, 20 test
images were gathered through Flickr to test the system.

Fig. 2 Diagram Describing Voting SVM and Voting Classification System.

V. RESULTS Labels beans broccoli corn peas

This section will present the results of each of the SVM beans 12 0 0 0
classifiers for each feature type. The following tables will broccoli 1 10 1 0
present a confusion matrix stating the classification accuracy corn 2 0 8 2
of each category. A validation dataset consisting of 12 images peas 1 0 1 10
was used to test each SVM. This image dataset was not used
within the training stage. TABLE IV. ACCURACY AND PRECISION ANALYSIS

Feature Type Accuracy Precision

TABLE I. CONFUSION MATRIX USING SURF FEATURES
SURF 85.41% 86.51%
LAB Colour Feature 83.33% 83.57%
Labels beans broccoli corn peas MSER + SURF 83.33% 84.58%
beans 11 0 1 0 Average 84.02 % 84.88%
broccoli 1 10 1 0
corn 3 0 9 0
peas 0 1 0 11

TABLE II. CONFUSION MATRIX UDING LAB

Labels beans broccoli Corn peas

beans 12 0 0 0 Further testing was undertaken in assessing the SVM
classification for each feature type by incorporating a voting
broccoli 0 9 0 3 mechanism. A validation dataset was gathered. These images
corn 0 0 12 0 in the validation dataset were not used within the training
peas 0 5 0 7 stage. Images were collated through using Flickr. Each image
was used as input into the system and a polygonal tool was
used by the user to draw around the food portion. The region
of interest is segmented and is then saved as an image. A
trained SVM would classify the region for each feature type.
The result of each SVM is saved into a variable. The label with
the highest occurrence in the variable is outputted to the user.
TABLE III. MSER AND SURF FEATURES CONFUSION MATRIX Table 4 shows the results of these tests.

2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS) Page 4 of 7

 This aim of this research was to allow users to classify a
region of interest (ROI) specified by the user using different
feature Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers. Different
feature detection types were used within this process (SURF,
LAB, and MSER with SURF). Each trained SVM feature
classifier was tested using a dataset to compute a confusion
matrix. The combined mean accuracy of each of these
classifiers was 84.02% for classifying 12 images for each
SVM. A multi-classification approach was used. Each SVM
classifier categorised the ROI and the result was saved within
a variable.
Plurality voting mechanism is used to determine the final
classification. Much research has used classification
techniques to automatically determine food regions
automatically by analysing an entire image [7, 21]. This
approach allows the user to determine the ROI for
classification. This approach would improve classification as
the SVM is only classifying a particular section of the image.
From the results (Table 5), the voting system is able to achieve
75% accuracy combining SVM feature classifiers to create a
voting classification system. The final classification accuracy
was greater than two of the SVM feature classifiers (SURF
and MSER with SURF). It was realised that more feature
types were needed to correctly classify the ROI for
information gain. Colour features and MSER features were
incorporated with SURF to develop a voting system and
results show that this system is able to improve upon accuracy
results of SURF and MSER+ SURF (Table 5).
The purpose of this research was to investigate computer
vision methods to analyse food images for accurate and
convenient food logging. Using images as a way to document
nutritional intake allows users to obtain more information
such as portion size and calorie content. Many food
applications require the user to use self-reporting techniques
to document food portions. Many users may report the wrong
portion size which then can lead to inaccuracies in
determining calorie content. Many food applications require
the user to use self-reporting techniques to document food
portions. Many users may report the wrong portion size,
which then can lead to inaccuracies in determining calorie
content. This work allows users to identify food items using a
semi-automated approach and incorporates a plurality system
to determine the final classification. In regards to implication
for obesity management, this system is tries promote self-
management by accurately documenting food items by
classifying food regions specified by the user instead of
manually typing in the food item. In previous work [22] this
same technique, described in could be employed to this
system to estimate calorie content by aligning calories with
food portion area after classification.
VI. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
Obesity is a major health concern globally including in UK
and Ireland [23, 24]. Being obese can have a detrimental effect
on an individuals’ health as it can cause chronic conditions
such as diabetes, bowel cancer, heart disease, and
hypertension [29]. In the UK, research conducted in 2013
reveal that 67.1% of men and 57.2% of women aged 16 and
2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS)
over were overweight or obese [30]. Technology has become
very pervasive in society notably in the use of smartphone
devices. This trend is prevalent across different ages and
demographics. Research has shown adolescents as 78% of
teens own a mobile phone and 47% of those own a smartphone
[28]. Research also shows that six in ten adults use a
smartphone [27]. This is an opportunity to use these
technologies to create interventions that promote healthy
eating and physical activity.
One of most popular methods to monitor energy intake is
using a food log application. This type of application allows
users to document food intake. The most popular form of this
type of application allows users to search a local or online food
database to search for food items. There has been research
conducted [25, 26] that suggests that people who self-monitor
their energy intake may improve their weight loss. Other
research has been conducted that utilise computer vision
methods to ascertain food type and to quantity portion size [5,
6]. Common food log applications use drop down menus to
select food items for documentation, computer vision methods
offer an alternative that involves finding nutritional
information from an image. This would be more convenient
from the user instead of searching through food databases.
The system described in this research discusses the
identification process of such a system. In this work different
feature detection algorithms and descriptors were
incorporated together to create a voting classification system.
This system is merely a proof of concept to find out if these
feature detection algorithms improves accuracy in identifying
food items. A voting mechanism was used by employing
plurality to output the final classification label for the
specified food portion. The specified food portion is selected
using a polygonal tool, which allows the user to draw around
the food item in the image. In terms of the impact of this
system, initial testing has been completed which shows
promising results of increasing accuracy in identifying food
items over two of the feature detection algorithms used (SURF
and MSER with SURF). Table 5 states that using SURF
features to train an SVM achieved 50% accuracy and MSER
with SURF feature SVM achieved 70%. LAB colour feature
classification achieved marginally slightly better results that
using the voting system with 80%.
The overall voting classification result is 75%, however
more images will be used in the future for further accuracy
testing to find out if there is a change in the results. The
number of food item categories will also be increased. The
number of images for each category will also be increased
during the training phase. This system would then be tested
against a larger validation dataset. The initial testing phase
used 20 images, future works will increase this number. In
regards to feature extraction, more feature selection
algorithms will be used such as Histogram of Orientated
Gradients (HOG) [19], texture features (STFA [18], Gabor
Filters) and also Gray Level Occurrence Matrix (GLCM) [20]
will be incorporated.
Page 5 of 7
 Image Known Food Region SURF LAB MSER+ SURF Classification
#1 Peas Peas Peas Peas Peas 
#2 Peas Beans Peas Peas Peas 
#3 Peas Peas Peas Peas Peas 
#4 Peas Peas Corn Peas Peas 
#5 Peas Peas Peas Peas Peas
#6 Broccoli Broccoli Broccoli Broccoli Broccoli 
#7 Broccoli Broccoli Broccoli Broccoli Broccoli 
#8 Broccoli Broccoli Peas Broccoli Broccoli 
#9 Broccoli Broccoli Peas Broccoli Broccoli 
#10 Broccoli Broccoli Corn Broccoli Broccoli
#11 Beans Peas Beans Peas Peas ‫ݳ‬
#12 Beans Peas Beans Peas Peas‫ݳ‬
#13 Beans Beans Beans Peas Beans 
#14 Beans Peas Beans Beans Beans 
#15 Beans Peas Beans Peas Peas‫ݳ‬
#16 Corn Peas Corn Peas Peas‫ݳ‬
#17 Corn Peas Corn Peas Peas‫ݳ‬
#18 Corn Peas Corn Corn Corn 
#19 Corn Peas Corn Corn Corn 

#20 Corn Peas Corn Corn Corn 

Accuracy 50% 80% 70% 75%

Precision 30.76% 84.52% 86.36% 87.5%

TABLE V. INITIAL TESTING OF VOTING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR 20 VALIDATION IMAGES

This system would also include methods to detect the Acknowledgement to DELNI for funding this research.
portion area measured in cm2 by including a predetermined
reference point in future test images as described in previous
work [22]. The reference point will be an object of known area [1]
e.g. coin, thumb, or a square. The system will detect the pixels
in the ROI specified by the user and the reference point would [2]
be used to calculate the portion area in cm2. The food portion
can then be calculated and the region classified for accurate
food logging. For further accuracy measurements depth sensor
methods could be employed to accurately determine food [3]
portion size along with this classification system for food
logging. Instead of using SVM to identify the ROI, other
supervised classification techniques could be employed such
[4]
as Neural Networks (NN) within this system to investigate
changes or improvements, if any in regards to accuracy. A
combination of such supervised techniques could be used [5]
along with feature detection algorithms to garner more results
for further analysis.
[6]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
National Obesity Awareness Week, “State of the Nation’s Waistline”,
Obesity in the UK, 2014.
Keane, E., Kearney, P. M., Perry, I. J., Kelleher, C. C., & Harrington,
J. M. (2014). Trends and prevalence of overweight and obesity in
primary school aged children in the Republic of Ireland from 2002-
2012: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 974.
http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-974
NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert Panel on the Identification,
E. and T. of O. in A. (US). (n.d.). Overweight and Obesity:
Background. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1995/
Ebbeling, C. B., Pawlak, D. B., & Ludwig, D. S. (2002). Childhood
obesity: public-health crisis, common sense cure. Lancet, 360(9331),
473–82. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)09678-2
Kawano, Y., & Yanai, K. (2013). Real-Time Mobile Food Recognition
System. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops
(CVPRW), 2013 IEEE Conference on (pp. 1–7).
http://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2013.5
Pham, C., Thi, N., & Thuy, T. (2014). Fresh Food Recognition Using
Feature Fusion, 298–302.

2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS) Page 6 of 7

[7] Anthimopoulos, M. M., Gianola, L., Scarnato, L., Diem, P., &
Mougiakakou, S. G. (2014). A Food Recognition System for Diabetic
Patients Based on an Optimized Bag-of-Features Model, 18(4), 1261–
1271.
[8] Alfanindya, A., Hashim, N., & Eswaran, C. (2013). Content Based
Image Retrieval and Classification using speeded-up robust features
(SURF) and grouped bag-of-visual-words (GBoVW). Proceedings of
2013 International Conference on Technology, Informatics,
Management, Engineering and Environment, TIME-E 2013, 77–82.
http://doi.org/10.1109/TIME-E.2013.6611968
[9] Y. He, C. Xu, N. Khanna, C. J. Boushey, and E. J. Delp, “Food image
analysis: Segmentation, identification and weight estimation,” Proc. -
IEEE Int. Conf. Multimed. Expo, 2013.
[10] W. Wang, P. Duan, W. Zhang, F. Gong, P. Zhang, and Y. Rao,
“Towards a pervasive cloud computing based food image recognition,”
in Proceedings - 2013 IEEE International Conference on Green
Computing and Communications and IEEE Internet of Things and
IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social Computing, GreenCom-iThings-
CPSCom 2013, 2013, pp. 2243–2244.
[11] N. Chen, Y. Y. Lee, M. Rabb, and B. Schatz, “Toward Dietary
Assessment via Mobile Phone Video Cameras.,” AMIA Annu. Symp.
Proc., vol. 2010, pp. 106–110, 2010
[12] Uk.mathworks.com, 'Image Category Classification Using Bag of
Features - MATLAB & Simulink Example', 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://uk.mathworks.com/help/vision/examples/image-category-
classification-using-bag-of-features.html. [Accessed: 01- Jun- 2015].
[13] H. Bay, T. Tuytelaars, and L. Van Gool, “SURF: Speeded Up Robust
Features,” in 9th European Conference on Computer Vision, 2006.
[14] Uk.mathworks.com, 'Detect SURF features and return SURFPoints
object - MATLAB detectSURFFeatures', 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://uk.mathworks.com/help/vision/ref/detectsurffeatures.html.
[Accessed: 08- Jun- 2015].
[15] Uk.mathworks.com, 'Image Retrieval Using Customized Bag of
Features - MATLAB & Simulink Example', 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://uk.mathworks.com/help/vision/examples/image-retrieval-using-
customized-bag-of-features.html. [Accessed: 01- Jun- 2015].
[16] J. Matas, O. Chum, M. Urban and T. Pajdla, 'Robust wide-baseline
stereo from maximally stable extremal regions', Image and Vision
Computing, vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 761-767, 2004.
[17] Uk.mathworks.com, 'k-means clustering - MATLAB kmeans', 2015.
[Online]. Available: http://uk.mathworks.com/help/stats/kmeans.html.
[Accessed: 01- Jun- 2015].
2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology in Society (ISTAS)
[18] S. Extractor, 'SFTA Texture Extractor - File Exchange - MATLAB
Central', Mathworks.com, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/37933-sfta-
texture-extractor. [Accessed: 01- Jun- 2015].
[19] Dalal, N.; Triggs, B., "Histograms of oriented gradients for human
detection," Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005. CVPR
2005. IEEE Computer Society Conference on , vol.1, no., pp.886,893
vol. 1, 25-25 June 2005. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2005.177
[20] Uk.mathworks.com, 'Gray-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix (GLCM) -
MATLAB & Simulink', 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://uk.mathworks.com/help/images/gray-level-co-occurrence-
matrix-glcm.html. [Accessed: 01- Jun- 2015].
[21] Y. He, C. Xu, N. Khanna, C. J. Boushey, and E. J. Delp, “Food image
analysis: Segmentation, identification and weight estimation,” Proc. -
IEEE Int. Conf. Multimed. Expo, 2013.
[22] P. McAllister, et al, ‘Semi-Automated System for Predicting Calories
in Photographs of Meals’, 2015, ICE/ IEEE International Technology
Management Conference, 22-24 June 2015.
[23] Public Health England, “Childhood Obesity”, noo.org.uk. [Online],
Available: http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/child_obesity
[Accessed 1 June 2015].
[24] DHSSPSNI, Health Survey Northern Ireland, “First Results
2013/2014”, 2013-2014
[25] R. Wing and J. Hill, 'Successful Weight loss Maintenance’, Annu. Rev.
Nutr., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 323-341, 2001.
[26] R. Baker and D. Kirschenbaum, 'Self-monitoring may be necessary for
successful weight control', Behavior Therapy, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 377-
394, 1993.
[27] Media.ofcom.org.uk, 'Half of UK homes turn to tablets - in just five
years', 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/five-years-of-tablets/.
[Accessed: 17- Aug- 2015].
[28] M. Madden, et al. “Teens and Technology”, Pew Research Center,
Harvard University, Washington, D. C, 2013.
[29] E. and T. of O. in A. (US) NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative Expert
Panel on the Identification, “Overweight and Obesity: Background.”
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 1998.
[30] Public Health England, “Childhood Obesity”, noo.org.uk. [Online],
Available: http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/child_obesity
[Accessed 1 December 2014].
Page 7 of 7