↓ Skip to main content

Benchmarking neuromorphic vision: lessons learnt from computer vision

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Benchmarking neuromorphic vision: lessons learnt from computer vision
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00374
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheston Tan, Stephane Lallee, Garrick Orchard

Abstract

Neuromorphic Vision sensors have improved greatly since the first silicon retina was presented almost three decades ago. They have recently matured to the point where they are commercially available and can be operated by laymen. However, despite improved availability of sensors, there remains a lack of good datasets, while algorithms for processing spike-based visual data are still in their infancy. On the other hand, frame-based computer vision algorithms are far more mature, thanks in part to widely accepted datasets which allow direct comparison between algorithms and encourage competition. We are presented with a unique opportunity to shape the development of Neuromorphic Vision benchmarks and challenges by leveraging what has been learnt from the use of datasets in frame-based computer vision. Taking advantage of this opportunity, in this paper we review the role that benchmarks and challenges have played in the advancement of frame-based computer vision, and suggest guidelines for the creation of Neuromorphic Vision benchmarks and challenges. We also discuss the unique challenges faced when benchmarking Neuromorphic Vision algorithms, particularly when attempting to provide direct comparison with frame-based computer vision.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
France 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 65 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 27%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 24 34%
Engineering 22 31%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Psychology 1 1%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 18 26%
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 18 August 2021.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#8,065
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,387
of 291,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#98
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 291,306 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.