Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

VibES: Induced Vibration for Persistent Event-Based Sensing

T0 review · 4 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Vibrating eccentric motor sustains event streams in static scenes, and an online filter removes the vibration to recover clean events.

desk verdict The core idea is sound and the hardware is refreshingly simple; the paper deserves a serious referee, but the edge-detection claim currently rests on a table that does not contain VIBES numbers, and the depth results have a systematic bias the text glosses over. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19094 v3 pith:M2GT2JBN submitted 2025-08-26 cs.CV cs.RO

Vincenzo Polizzi , Stephen Yang , Quentin Clark , Jonathan Kelly , Igor Gilitschenski , David B. Lindell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords eventcamerasinducedvibrationmotioncompensationextendedKalmanfiltermicrosaccade-inspiredsensingimagereconstructionedgedetectionrelativedepthestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Event cameras measure only intensity changes, so a rigidly mounted camera in a static scene stops producing events and the visual signal fades. VIBES attaches a small rotating unbalanced mass to the camera body, creating forced harmonic vibration that keeps pixels firing the way tiny involuntary eye movements keep human vision refreshed. The paper's central claim is that this injected motion is a predictable single-frequency sinusoid whose parameters can be estimated online from the event stream alone, then subtracted to recover the static scene. If that claim holds, event-based perception can run persistently in static or slow scenes, and the same estimated motion parameters double as cues for scene-object vibration frequency and relative depth. The authors build a foam-suspended prototype and report, across four real-world datasets, higher event density, sharper accumulated frames, more connected edges, and better reconstructed images than a non-vibrating event camera.

What carries the argument

Central machinery is the sinusoidal camera-motion model v' = v + A_y cos(omega t + phi_y), which treats induced vibration as planar circular translation of the real camera around an imaginary static camera. Everything else hangs on it: the model makes the injected motion a sparse, predictable signal, lets the non-uniform FFT recover its frequency from irregular event timestamps, gives the Extended Kalman Filter a stable state (theta, omega, a_y, b_y, v) that avoids phase wrapping, and makes the per-track amplitude A_y proportional to f*Y0/Z so amplitude ratios across trackers map directly to relative depth. The EKF parametrization a_y sin theta + b_y cos theta + v keeps the observation model

What would settle it

Take the vibrating prototype and record its actual trajectory with an external high-speed camera or optical tracker while events are being captured; fit the best single sinusoid of the paper's model to that trajectory and check the residual in image coordinates over one oscillation period. If the residual exceeds about one pixel for targets within the paper's stated 47.3 cm sensing range, motion compensation will leave systematic ghosting or blur on reconstructed edges. A second decisive test: place two textured patterns at clearly different depths and run the pipeline with a single tracker; t

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a consumer DC motor with an off-axis mass can replace bulky optical or pan-tilt hardware for microsaccade-style event stimulation. The motion is modeled as v' = v + A_y cos(omega t + phi_y): the physical camera circulates around a virtual static camera, so every tracked point moves on a sinusoid whose amplitude encodes scene depth. The pipeline — HASTE tracker, NUFFT frequency initialization, and an Extended Kalman Filter that tracks angular position, frequency, sine/cosine amplitudes, and the compensated coordinate — estimates and removes that motion in real time (~65 Mev/s) without position encoders or calibration. On their own three scenes plus the public AMI-EV data

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the induced vibration is a single sinusoid with one global frequency and phase, and that each tracker sees one depth plane; real foam-suspended motor vibration and multi-depth scenes violate both.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static or quasi-static scenes no longer starve event cameras of data; the paper's measurements show entropy stays high and stable while a non-vibrating camera's entropy drops.
  • Downstream event algorithms — image reconstruction and edge detection in the paper; tracking and SLAM by extension — receive a motion-corrected stream rather than raw vibration, so they can treat the camera as approximately static.
  • The compensation stack is hardware-agnostic: it runs on the authors' motor prototype and on the public AMI-EV wedge-prism data with comparable quality, suggesting one software pipeline can serve different shaker designs.
  • The same frequency estimator can double as a vibration sensor for scene objects, with measured errors below 0.1 Hz for 7.5-22.5 Hz targets.
  • Multiple EKF trackers yield amplitude ratios that predict relative depth (predicted 0.41/0.59/0.80 for true 0.33/0.50/0.66 in simulation), opening a parallax-based depth cue.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the sinusoidal assumption is robust, the shaker could be made adaptive: turn it off when the scene is already dynamic and re-engage when event rate drops, preserving the camera's low-power advantage.
  • Because the amplitude formula A = fY0/Z ties perceived motion to depth, the induced vibration effectively creates a virtual stereo baseline; with the physical vibration amplitude calibrated once, the same estimator could yield absolute depth, not just ratios.
  • The single-depth-plane assumption per tracker is the main obstacle for arbitrary scenes; a natural extension is per-pixel or depth-segmented EKF instances, which the paper's multi-tracker design already allows.
  • The hardware is cheap and compact enough that vibration-based event stimulation could become an integrated feature of commodity event camera modules; the open question is whether the foam suspension remains a clean single sinusoid at higher amplitudes and over long-term wear.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VibES, a hardware-software system that mounts a small eccentric rotating mass on an event camera to induce controlled sinusoidal vibration, thereby generating persistent events even in static scenes. The induced motion is modeled as a damped harmonic oscillator, and a pipeline (HASTE tracker, NUFFT frequency initialization, and an EKF) estimates the sinusoidal motion parameters directly from the event stream. The estimated motion is then used to compensate the events, yielding a motion-stabilized event stream. The authors claim improvements in event density, image reconstruction quality, edge detection, scene-frequency estimation, and relative depth awareness, and demonstrate the approach on real-world datasets (including AMI-EV) and synthetic data.

Significance. If the claims are sustained, the work offers a practical, low-power, hardware-simple answer to the well-known 'perceptual fading' problem of event cameras, with a fully model-based, online motion-compensation pipeline that does not require external position encoders. The paper discloses mechanical design parameters, power consumption, and runtime, and it demonstrates hardware independence by reusing the algorithm on the AMI-EV rotating-wedge-prism dataset. The real-world measured entropy, NIQE, variance, and gradient-magnitude improvements over a static event camera are notable. The main weakness is that the quantitative support for the edge-continuity part of the central claim is incomplete, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.4, Table 4] Table 4 is the only place where edge continuity/fragmentation metrics are reported, yet every row is labeled S-EV or V-EV; there is no VIBES row. The caption states 'Across most scenes, VIBES reduces edge fragmentation and increases contour continuity compared to S-EV,' and the text says 'VIBES produces clean, well-connected edge maps.' These claims are not supported by the presented numbers. The missing rows are load-bearing for the 'improves edge detection' component of the central claim. Please add the VIBES rows, or if the data are not available, restrict the claim to the variance/gradient-magnitude metrics of Table 3 and remove the continuity/fragmentation statements.
  2. [Sec. 4.2, 'Edges continuity and fragmentation' metric] The metric definition says 'The average number of components measures the number of components in an edge map, with a greater number showing less fragmented and noisy edges.' This is internally contradictory: more connected components in a thinned edge map typically indicates more fragmentation, not less. Table 4's caption says 'number of connected components (lower is better),' which contradicts the text. Please correct the direction of the metric and ensure the text and table caption agree.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Relative Depth Awareness] The predicted depth ratios are 0.41±0.01, 0.59±0.02, and 0.80±0.03 for ground-truth ratios 0.33, 0.50, and 0.66. This is a systematic overestimation of roughly 20% relative error. Calling this 'reliably predicts' is an overstatement without discussing the bias. Please report relative errors and discuss possible sources (e.g., amplitude estimation bias, non-ideal sinusoidal motion, tracker noise) and whether this is acceptable for the intended application.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.3 and Fig. 1] The paper claims compensation 'across the entire scene' using the EKF-tracked region, but Sec. 3.2.3 states the assumption that all objects in the same scene share one depth plane. Real scenes contain depth variation, and the amplitude of the induced motion depends on depth (Eq. 5). Although the implementation allows multiple trackers, the paper does not describe how multiple trackers are fused or how a spatially varying amplitude map is obtained for whole-image compensation. This limits the general-scene claim. Please either describe the fusion/interpolation scheme or explicitly state the single-depth limitation in the main text and temper the 'across the entire scene' phrasing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 4.2] The phrase 'with a greater number showing less fragmented and noisy edges' is confusing and should be rewritten once the direction is corrected.
  2. [Sec. 5.1] The text says higher frequencies are affected by aliasing, but Table 5 shows the smallest absolute error at 22.6 Hz. Please clarify how aliasing manifests and why the error does not monotonically increase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the motion-compensation parameters are estimated from the event stream and removed, which is legitimate online self-calibration; the relative-depth result is a direct geometric consequence, not a fit to the target.

full rationale

The paper's central mechanism is self-contained: the sinusoidal motion parameters (frequency, amplitude, phase) are estimated from tracker trajectories on the event stream and then subtracted to produce compensated events. This is standard online state estimation, not circular, because the parameters are not fitted to the evaluation metrics (entropy, NIQE, variance, gradient magnitude) and those metrics are computed on the output, not used as optimization targets. The relative-depth application (Supplementary Eq. S32) follows directly from the pinhole projection model in Eq. 5: the observed amplitude A_y = f Y0 / Z, so the ratio A1/A2 = Z2/Z1 cancels the unknown physical baseline Y0. The synthetic depth experiment compares these predicted ratios against independently set ground-truth distances, so the result is not forced by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the paper uses published tools (HASTE, NUFFT, E2VID) as components and does not invoke its own prior work to justify the model. The only notable issue is that Table 4, which is invoked to support the edge-continuity improvement claim, contains no VIBES rows (only S-EV and V-EV), despite the caption and text claiming VIBES reduces fragmentation. This is a reporting/evidence gap, not circularity, and does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It does introduce several estimated parameters (amplitude, phase, frequency) and relies on idealized mechanical and scene assumptions. The most important are the sinusoid assumption and the single-depth-plane assumption, both acknowledged but not deeply validated.

free parameters (4)
  • Oscillation amplitude A_y (per tracker) = Varies per scene; used in depth ratio test
    Estimated online from event trajectories via NUFFT + least squares and refined by EKF. It is a per-tracker fitted quantity and is the core of the relative depth estimate.
  • Oscillation frequency omega = Initial range 30-500 rad/s
    Estimated online from the event stream. The search range in Sec. S1.1.2 is chosen by hand based on expected motor behavior.
  • EKF process/measurement noise covariances Q and R = Not quantitatively specified
    The EKF requires these matrices, and the paper states Q is process noise covariance and R measurement noise, but does not report how they were set. They affect tracking behavior.
  • Tracker initialization = Manually selected high-texture regions
    The HASTE trackers are initialized by manual selection, a human-chosen procedure that may affect results and is not automatic.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The camera-motor system is a forced damped harmonic oscillator whose steady-state motion is a pure sinusoid.
    Used throughout Sec. 3.1 and Eq. 5. Real foam suspension and motor may introduce higher harmonics or non-planar motion.
  • standard math A standard pinhole projection model with planar motion and constant focal length applies.
    Adopted in Sec. 3.1 to derive Eq. 5. This is standard but assumes idealized optics.
  • domain assumption Within a single tracker's region, all scene points share the same depth plane.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2.3. This is required for a single amplitude estimate per tracker and is violated in general scenes.
  • domain assumption The oscillation frequency and phase are constant across the entire image plane and over time.
    Stated in Sec. 3.2.3. Mechanical drift or scene-relative motion would violate this.
  • domain assumption The induced motion produces pixel displacements larger than one pixel for the target scene depth.
    The authors compute a 47.3 cm maximum distance beyond which no events are triggered. This limits the claimed static-scene capability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VibES: Induced Vibration for Persistent Event-Based Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M2GT2JBN

@misc{pith2026250819094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VibES: Induced Vibration for Persistent Event-Based Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M2GT2JBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19094}
}
read the original abstract

Event cameras are a bio-inspired class of sensors that asynchronously measure per-pixel intensity changes. Under fixed illumination conditions in static or low-motion scenes, rigidly mounted event cameras are unable to generate any events and become unsuitable for most computer vision tasks. To address this limitation, recent work has investigated motion-induced event stimulation, which often requires complex hardware or additional optical components. In contrast, we introduce a lightweight approach to sustain persistent event generation by employing a simple rotating unbalanced mass to induce periodic vibrational motion. This is combined with a motion-compensation pipeline that removes the injected motion and yields clean, motion-corrected events for downstream perception tasks. We develop a hardware prototype to demonstrate our approach and evaluate it on real-world datasets. Our method reliably recovers motion parameters and improves both image reconstruction and edge detection compared to event-based sensing without motion induction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19094 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Qualitative illustration of our method. No Vibration. With a static event camera and no induced motion, the accumulated event image appears blurred and lacks sharp edges, while the y–t slice shows little temporal structure. With Vibration. Introducing controlled vibrations stimulates the sensor, increasing the number of events and producing sinusoidal traces in the y–t slice. We develop an Extended Kalman Filter (EK… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the mass–spring–damper model. Cam￾era setup at two time steps, t0 a) and t1 b). The rotation of an off￾axis mass m with angular velocity ω induces planar displacements ∆x, ∆y (only the vertical component is illustrated). The estimated oscillation frequency, 2π T , corresponds to the motion perceived by the camera. Note that this differs from the natural frequency of the off-axis mass ω, due to inertial … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual representation of the camera model. The vir￾tual camera C remains static, while the real camera C ′ translates along a circular path centered at C in the x–y image plane of C. We denote p and p ′ as the projected point of PW in the virtual and and real image planes respectively. Aˆ and A refer to the am￾plitudes of motion in the virtual and real frames respectively. The objective is to remove the resulting os… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic representation of VIBES. The input event stream is processed by a tracker that extracts trajectories used to estimate the dominant frequency, amplitude, and phase shift of the oscillatory motion. Once the sinusoidal motion is characterized, an Extended Kalman…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Shannon entropy and NIQE scores of reconstructed frames of binary accumulated event frames, computed over 10 ms time windows on the Logo real-world scene. The shaded range denotes the minimum and maximum values within every 10-frame window. Temporal screenshots of both…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of depth prediction setup. The two pat￾terns are placed at different distances from the camera and we are capable of estimating the ratio d1 d2 (or vice versa) by observing the amplitudes of the perceived motion of the camera measured by the tracker (Sec. …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. REALM: An RGB- and Event-Aligned Latent Manifold for Cross-Modal Perception

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    REALM aligns event streams with RGB ViT latent spaces via LoRA, enabling zero-shot transfer of image-trained linear heads and complex decoders like MASt3R to raw event data with reported SOTA wide-baseline matching pe...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Alzugaray and M

    I. Alzugaray and M. Chli. HASTE: multi-hypothesis asyn- chronous speeded-up tracking of events. In Brit. Mach. Vis. Conf. (BMVC), 2020. 4

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Event-based star tracking under space- craft jitter: the e-sturt dataset

    Samya Bagchi, Peter Anastasiou, Matthew Tetlow, Tat-Jun Chin, and Yasir Latif. Event-based star tracking under space- craft jitter: the e-sturt dataset. arXiv e-prints, 2025. 3

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Non-invasive qualitative vibration analysis using event camera

    Dwijay Bane, Anurag Gupta, and Manan Suri. Non-invasive qualitative vibration analysis using event camera. arXiv e- prints, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    exponential of semicircle

    Alexander H Barnett, Jeremy Magland, and Ludvig af Klin- teberg. A parallel nonuniform fast fourier transform library based on an “exponential of semicircle” kernel. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 2019. 4

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Elised — an event-based line segment detector

    Christian Br ¨andli, Jonas Strubel, Susanne Keller, Davide Scaramuzza, and Tobi Delbruck. Elised — an event-based line segment detector. In Int. Conf. Event-Based Control, Commun. Signal Proc. (EBCCSP), 2016. 2

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Ecsnet: Spatio-temporal feature learning for event camera

    Zhiwen Chen, Jinjian Wu, Junhui Hou, Leida Li, Weisheng Dong, and Guangming Shi. Ecsnet: Spatio-temporal feature learning for event camera. IEEE TCSVT, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    A study of troxler’s effect

    FJJ Clarke. A study of troxler’s effect. Opt. Acta: Int. J. Opt., 1960. 1

    work page 1960

  8. [8]

    Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package

    Blender Online Community. Blender - a 3D modelling and rendering package. Blender Foundation, Stichting Blender Foundation, Amsterdam, 2018. 8, 11

    work page 2018

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    V2e: From video frames to realistic dvs event camera streams

    Tobi Delbruck, Yuhuang Hu, and Zhe He. V2e: From video frames to realistic dvs event camera streams. arXiv e-prints,

  2. [10]

    Dji robomaster m2006 p36 brushless dc gear motor,

    DJI. Dji robomaster m2006 p36 brushless dc gear motor,

  3. [11]

    Standard and event cameras fu- sion for feature tracking

    Yan Dong and Tao Zhang. Standard and event cameras fu- sion for feature tracking. In Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Vis. and Appl. (ICMVA), 2021. 2

    2021

  4. [12]

    Dynamixel mx-28t

    Dynamixel. Dynamixel mx-28t. http://emanual. robotis.com/docs/en/dxl/mx/mx-28t/. 13

  5. [13]

    Wandering around: A bioinspired approach to visual atten- tion through object motion sensitivity

    Giulia D’Angelo, Victoria Clerico, Chiara Bartolozzi, Matej Hoffmann, P Michael Furlong, and Alexander Hadjiivanov. Wandering around: A bioinspired approach to visual atten- tion through object motion sensitivity. Neuromorphic Com- put. Eng., 2025. 2, 3

    2025

  6. [14]

    Geared hobby motor

    SparkFun Electronics. Geared hobby motor. https:// www.sparkfun.com/hobby- motor- gear.html ,

  7. [15]

    Two linear time union- find strategies for image processing

    Christophe Fiorio and Jens Gustedt. Two linear time union- find strategies for image processing. Theor. Comput. Sci. ,

  8. [16]

    FLIR. Ptu d46. https : / / www . sustainable - robotics . com / reference / PTU / ptu _ d46 _ datasheet.pdf. 13, 14

  9. [17]

    FLIR. Ptu e46. https : / / www . sustainable - robotics . com / reference / PTU / PTU - manual - E46-1.00-SMALL.pdf, 2014. 13, 14

    2014

  10. [18]

    A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cam- eras, with applications to motion, depth, and optical flow es- timation

    Guillermo Gallego, Henri Rebecq, and Davide Scaramuzza. A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cam- eras, with applications to motion, depth, and optical flow es- timation. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2018. 2, 6, 12

    2018

  11. [19]

    Davison, J ¨org Conradt, Kostas Daniilidis, and Davide Scaramuzza

    Guillermo Gallego, Tobi Delbr ¨uck, Garrick Orchard, Chiara Bartolozzi, Brian Taba, Andrea Censi, Stefan Leutenegger, Andrew J. Davison, J ¨org Conradt, Kostas Daniilidis, and Davide Scaramuzza. Event-based vision: A survey. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 2022. 1

    2022

  12. [20]

    Low-latency auto- motive vision with event cameras

    Daniel Gehrig and Davide Scaramuzza. Low-latency auto- motive vision with event cameras. Nature, 2024. 1

    2024

  13. [21]

    Eklt: Asynchronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames

    Daniel Gehrig, Henri Rebecq, Guillermo Gallego, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Eklt: Asynchronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames. Int. J. Comput. Vis., 2020. 2

    2020

  14. [22]

    Robust visual tracking with a freely-moving event camera

    Arren Glover and Chiara Bartolozzi. Robust visual tracking with a freely-moving event camera. In IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS). IEEE, 2017. 2

    2017

  15. [23]

    Event-guided image super- resolution reconstruction

    Guangsha Guo, Yang Feng, Hengyi Lv, Yuchen Zhao, Hai- long Liu, and Guoling Bi. Event-guided image super- resolution reconstruction. Sensors, 2023. 2

    2023

  16. [24]

    Microsaccade-inspired event camera for robotics

    Botao He, Ze Wang, Yuan Zhou, Jingxi Chen, Chahat Deep Singh, Haojia Li, Yuman Gao, Shaojie Shen, Kaiwei Wang, Yanjun Cao, Chao Xu, Yiannis Aloimonos, Fei Gao, and Cornelia Ferm¨uller. Microsaccade-inspired event camera for robotics. Sci. Robot., 2024. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13

    2024

  17. [25]

    Learning event-based motion deblurring

    Zhe Jiang, Yu Zhang, Dongqing Zou, Jimmy Ren, Jiancheng Lv, and Yebin Liu. Learning event-based motion deblurring. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2020. 2

    2020

  18. [26]

    Turning frequency to resolution: Video super-resolution via event cameras

    Yongcheng Jing, Yiding Yang, Xinchao Wang, Mingli Song, and Dacheng Tao. Turning frequency to resolution: Video super-resolution via event cameras. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2021. 2

    2021

  19. [27]

    Openess: Event-based semantic scene understanding with open vocabularies

    Lingdong Kong, Youquan Liu, Lai Xing Ng, Benoit R Cot- tereau, and Wei Tsang Ooi. Openess: Event-based semantic scene understanding with open vocabularies. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2024. 1

    2024

  20. [28]

    Microsaccades

    Bart Krekelberg. Microsaccades. Curr. Biol., 2011. 1

    2011

  21. [29]

    3d feature tracking via event camera

    Siqi Li, Zhikuan Zhou, Zhou Xue, Yipeng Li, Shaoyi Du, and Yue Gao. 3d feature tracking via event camera. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2024. 2

    2024

  22. [30]

    Contrast detec- tion in event-streams from dynamic vision sensors with fix- ational eye movements

    Maximilian PR L ¨ohr and Heiko Neumann. Contrast detec- tion in event-streams from dynamic vision sensors with fix- ational eye movements. In IEEE Int. Symp. Circuits Syst. (ISCAS). IEEE, 2018. 3

    2018

  23. [31]

    Event ellipsometer: Event-based mueller-matrix video imag- ing

    Ryota Maeda, Yunseong Moon, and Seung-Hwan Baek. Event ellipsometer: Event-based mueller-matrix video imag- ing. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2025. 3

    2025

  24. [32]

    Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras

    Nico Messikommer, Carter Fang, Mathias Gehrig, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  25. [33]

    completely blind

    A. Mittal, R. Soundararajan, and A. C. Bovik. Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Sign. Pro- cess. Letters, 2013. 6, 12

    2013

  26. [34]

    Cohen, and Nitish Thakor

    Garrick Orchard, Ajinkya Jayawant, Gregory K. Cohen, and Nitish Thakor. Converting static image datasets to spik- ing neuromorphic datasets using saccades. Front. Neurosci.,

  27. [35]

    Characterization of particles and particle systems

    W Pabst and EJIP Gregorova. Characterization of particles and particle systems. ICT Prague, 2007. 6

    2007

  28. [36]

    Bringing a blurry frame alive at high frame-rate with an event camera

    Liyuan Pan, Cedric Scheerlinck, Xin Yu, Richard Hartley, Miaomiao Liu, and Yuchao Dai. Bringing a blurry frame alive at high frame-rate with an event camera. InIEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2019. 2

    2019

  29. [37]

    Frequency cam: Imaging periodic signals in real-time

    Bernd Pfrommer. Frequency cam: Imaging periodic signals in real-time. arXiv e-prints, 2022. 2

    2022

  30. [38]

    Events-to-video: Bringing modern computer vision to event cameras

    Henri Rebecq, Ren ´e Ranftl, Vladlen Koltun, and Davide Scaramuzza. Events-to-video: Bringing modern computer vision to event cameras. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2019. 6, 7

    2019

  31. [39]

    High speed and high dynamic range video with an event camera

    Henri Rebecq, Ren ´e Ranftl, Vladlen Koltun, and Davide Scaramuzza. High speed and high dynamic range video with an event camera. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. ,

  32. [40]

    C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Sys. Tech. J, 1948. 6, 12

    1948

  33. [41]

    Event cameras in automotive sensing: A review

    Waseem Shariff, Mehdi Sefidgar Dilmaghani, Paul Kielty, Mohamed Moustafa, Joe Lemley, and Peter Corcoran. Event cameras in automotive sensing: A review. IEEE Access ,

  34. [42]

    Efficient real- time quadcopter propeller detection and attribute estimation with high-resolution event camera

    Radim Spetlik, Tereza Uhrov ´a, and Jiˇr´ı Matas. Efficient real- time quadcopter propeller detection and attribute estimation with high-resolution event camera. InScandinavian Conf. on Im. Analysis (SCIA). Springer, 2025. 2

    2025

  35. [43]

    Dy- namic detectors of oriented spatial contrast from isotropic fixational eye movements

    Simone Testa, Giacomo Indiveri, and Silvio P Sabatini. Dy- namic detectors of oriented spatial contrast from isotropic fixational eye movements. SciTePress, 2020. 2, 3, 13

    2020

  36. [44]

    Ac- tive fixation as an efficient coding strategy for neuromorphic vision

    Simone Testa, Silvio P Sabatini, and Andrea Canessa. Ac- tive fixation as an efficient coding strategy for neuromorphic vision. Sci. Rep., 2023. 2, 3, 13

    2023

  37. [45]

    Ultimate slam? combining events, images, and imu for robust visual slam in hdr and high speed scenarios

    Antoni Rosinol Vidal, Henri Rebecq, Timo Horstschaefer, and Davide Scaramuzza. Ultimate slam? combining events, images, and imu for robust visual slam in hdr and high speed scenarios. In IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., 2018. 1, 2

    2018

  38. [46]

    Ultimate slam? combining events, images, and imu for robust visual slam in hdr and high-speed scenarios

    Antoni Rosinol Vidal, Henri Rebecq, Timo Horstschaefer, and Davide Scaramuzza. Ultimate slam? combining events, images, and imu for robust visual slam in hdr and high-speed scenarios. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett., 2018. 2

    2018

  39. [47]

    Fix- ational eye movements enhance the precision of visual in- formation transmitted by the primate retina

    Eric G Wu, Nora Brackbill, Colleen Rhoades, Alexandra Kling, Alex R Gogliettino, Nishal P Shah, Alexander Sher, Alan M Litke, Eero P Simoncelli, and EJ Chichilnisky. Fix- ational eye movements enhance the precision of visual in- formation transmitted by the primate retina. bio...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Optimiz- ing connected component labeling algorithms

    Kesheng Wu, Ekow Otoo, and Arie Shoshani. Optimiz- ing connected component labeling algorithms. In Im. Proc. SPIE, 2005. 6

    2005

  41. [49]

    Eventcap: Monoc- ular 3d capture of high-speed human motions using an event camera

    Lan Xu, Weipeng Xu, Vladislav Golyanik, Marc Haber- mann, Lu Fang, and Christian Theobalt. Eventcap: Monoc- ular 3d capture of high-speed human motions using an event camera. In IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2020. 2

    2020

  42. [50]

    Active percep- tion with dynamic vision sensors

    Amirreza Yousefzadeh, Garrick Orchard, Teresa Serrano- Gotarredona, and Bernab´e Linares-Barranco. Active percep- tion with dynamic vision sensors. minimum saccades with optimum recognition. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. ,

  43. [51]

    Spiking transformers for event-based single object tracking

    Jiqing Zhang, Bo Dong, Haiwei Zhang, Jianchuan Ding, Fe- lix Heide, Baocai Yin, and Xin Yang. Spiking transformers for event-based single object tracking. In IEEE Conf. Com- put. Vis. Pattern Recog., 2022. 2

    2022

  44. [52]

    T. Y . Zhang and C. Y . Suen. A fast parallel algorithm for thinning digital patterns. Commun. ACM, 1984. 6

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.