Visually weighted assessment of image degradation resulting from image compression

Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering

Volumn 2707, Issue , 1996, Pages 507-518

  Lattner, Stefanie ^a   Good, Walter F ^a   Maitz, Glenn S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DEGRADATION; DIGITAL IMAGE STORAGE; IMAGE COMPRESSION; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ALGORITHMS; CHARACTERIZATION; FORECASTING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

CT IMAGES; IMAGE DEGRADATIONS; JPEG ALGORITHMS; ORIGINAL IMAGES; PHANTOM IMAGES; PSYCHOPHYSICAL; SHORT-COMINGS; WAVELET COMPRESSION ALGORITHMS;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

IMAGE DEGRADATION; IMAGE DISPLAY; PHANTOM IMAGES; VISIBLE DIFFERENCE PREDICTORS; VISUALLY WEIGHTED ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0029697570     PISSN: 0277786X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.238481     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Stein CS, Watson AB, Hitchner LE. Psychophysical rating of image compression techniques. Proc SPIE 1989; 1077:198-208
2. Mannos JL, Sakrison DJ. The effects of a visual fidelity criterion on the encoding of images. IEEE Trans Info Theory 1974; 20:525-536
3. Cannon TM, Trussell HJ, Hunt BR. Comparison of image restoration methods. Appl Optics 1978; 17:3384-3390
4. Girod B. What's wrong with mean-squared error? [Chapter]. Watson AB, Editor. Digital Images and Human Vision. 1st ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts MIT Press 1993; 207-220
5. Wagner RF. Beyond signal-detection theory. Proc SPIE 1986; 626:231-239
6. Tanner WP, Swets J. A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev 1954; 61:401-409
7. Wagner RF, Brown DG, Pastel MS. Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography. Med Phys 1979; 6:83-94
8. Burgess AE, Wagner RF, Jennings RJ. Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. Science 1981; 214:93-94
9. Barten PGJ. The Square root integral (SQRI). Proc SPIE 1989; 1077:73-82
10. Barten PGJ. Evaluation of the effect of noise on subjective image quality. Proc SPIE 1991; 1453:2-15
11. Nill NB, Bouzas BH. Objective image quality measure derived from digital image power spectra. Optical Engineering 1992; 31(4):813-825
12. Fiete RD, Barrett HH, Cargill EB, Myers KJ, Smith WE. Psychophysical validation of the Hotelling trace criterion as a metric for system performance. Proc SPIE 1987; 767:298-304
13. Daly S. The visible difference predictor. Proc SPIE 1992; 1666:2-15
14. Daly S. Application of a Noise Adaptive Contrast Sensitivity Function to Image Data Compression. Human Vision, Visual Processing and Digital Display. 1989;1077:217-227.
15. Daly S. The Visible Differences Predictor: An Algorithm for the Assessment of Image Fidelity. Watson AB, Editor. Digital Images and Human Vision. 1st ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press; 1993:179-206.
16. Lu HQ. Quantitative evaluation of image enhancement algorithms. Proc SPIE 1991;1453:223-234
17. Young RA. Oh say, can you see? The physiology of vision. Proc SPIE. 1991;1453:92-123.
18. Normann RA, Baxter BS, Ravindra H, Anderton PJ. Photoreceptor contributions to contrast sensitivity: Applications in radiological diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1983;SMC-13(5):944- 952.
19. Peli E. Contrast in Complex Images. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 1990;7(10):2032-2039.
20. Sezan MI, Yip K-L, Daly SJ. Uniform Perceptual Quantization: Applications to Digital Radiography. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1987;SMC-17(4):622-634.
21. Baylor D, Fuortes M. Electrical responses of single cones in the retina of the turtle. J Physiology. 1970;207:77-92.
22. Ahumada AJ Jr, Watson AB, "Equivalent-Noise Model for Contrast Detection and Discrimination," J. Optical Society of America, 1985, Vol 2 (7), 1133-1139.
23. Blakemore C, Campbell FW. On the Existence of Neurones in the Human Visual System Selectively Sensitive to the Orientation and Size of Retinal Images. J Physiol. 1969;203:237-260.
24. Campbell F, Kulikowski J, Levinson J. The effect of orientation on the visual resolution of gratings. J of Physiology. 1966;187:427-436.
25. Howell E, Hess R. The functional area for summation to threshold for sinusoidal gratings. Vision Res. 1978;18:369-374.
26. Wegmann B, Zetzsche C. Visual System Based Polar Quantization of Local Amplitude and Local Phase of Orientation Filter Outputs. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging: Models, Methods, and Applications. 1990;1249:306-317.
27. Hall CF, Hall EL. A nonlinear model for the spatial characteristics of the human visual system . IEEE Trans on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1977;SMC-7(3):161-170.
28. Kelly D. Visual contrast sensitivity. Optica ACTA. 1977;24(2):107-129.
29. Snowden R.J. Adaptability of the visual system is inversely related to its sensitivity. J Optical Soc of America. 1994;11(1):25-32.
30. Hubel DH, Wiesel T N. Receptive Fields, Binocular Interaction and Functional Architecture in the Cat's Visual Cortex. J Physiol. 1962;160:106-154.
31. Marcelja S. Mathematical description of the responses of simple cortical cells. Optical Society of America. 1980;70:1297-1300.
32. Phillips GC, Wilson HR. Orientation bandwidths of spatial mechanisms meaured by masking. Journal of the Optical Society of America. 1984;1:226-232.
33. Watson AB, Ahumada Jr AJ. A Hexagonal Orthogonal-Oriented Pyramid as a Model of Image Representation in Visual Cortex. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1989;36(1):97-105.
34. Zetzsche C, Hauske G. Multiple Channel Model for the Prediction of Subjective Image Quality. Proc SPIE. 1989;1077:209-216.
35. Watson AB. The Cortex Transform: Rapid Computation of Simulated Neural Images, Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing, 1987; 39, 311-327.
36. Mayer MJ, Tyler CW. Invariance of the slope of the psychometric function with spatial summation. J Optical Society of America. 1986;3(8):1166-1172.