Evaluation of image compression using plausible "nonvisually weighted" image fidelity measures

Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering

Volumn 2707, Issue , 1996, Pages 301-309

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

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL IMAGE STORAGE; IMAGE COMPRESSION; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; AUTOMATION; EVALUATION; ONCOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; RADIOGRAPHY;

AUTOMATED TECHNIQUES; COMPRESSION RATIOS; COMPRESSION SCHEMES; CT IMAGES; CURRENT TRENDS; DIFFERENCE IMAGES; IMAGE DEGRADATIONS; IMAGE FIDELITIES; JPEG ALGORITHMS; OBSERVER PERFORMANCE STUDIES; OBSERVER PERFORMANCES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGES;

MEDICAL IMAGING;

IMAGE DEGRADATION; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE FIDELITY MEASURES; JUST NOTICEABLE DIFFERENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY;

EID: 0029706394     PISSN: 0277786X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1117/12.238458     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Stein CS, Watson AB, Hitchner LE. Psychophysical rating of image compression techniques. Proc SPIE 1989; 1077:198-208
2. Granrath DJ. The role of human visual models in image processing. Proc IEEE 1981; 69:552-561
3. Mannos JL, Sakrison DJ. The effects of a visual fidelity criterion on the encoding of images. IEEE Trans Info Theory 1974; 20:525-536
4. Cannon TM, Trussell HJ, Hunt BR. Comparison of image restoration methods. Appl Optics 1978; 17:3384-3390
5. Girod B. What's wrong with mean-squared error? [Chapter]. Watson AB, Editor. Digital Images Human Vision. 1st ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press 1993; 207-220
6. Penney BC, King MA, Schwinger RB, Stritzke P, Doherty PW, Baker SP. Convolution squared error versus observer performance. Proc SPIE 1987; 767:317-323
7. Wagner RF. Beyond signal-detection theory. Proc SPIE 1986; 626:231-239
8. Tanner WP, Swets J. A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev 1954; 61:401-409
9. Barlow HB. The efficiency of detecting changes in density in random dot patterns. Vision Res 1978; 18:637-650
10. Wagner RF, Brown DO, Pastel MS. Application of information theory to the assessment of computed tomography. Med Phys 1979; 6:83-94
11. Burgess AE, Wagner RF, Jennings RJ. Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. Science 1981; 214:93-94
12. Barten PGJ. The Square root integral (SQRI). Proc SPIE 1989; 1077:73-82
13. Batten PGJ. Evaluation of the effect of noise on subjective image quality. Proc SPIE 1991; 1453:2-15
14. Nill NB, Bouzas BH. Objective image quality measure derived from digital image power spectra. Optical Engineering 1992; 31 (4):8 13-825
15. 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
16. Daly S. The visible difference predictor. Proc SPIE 1992; 1666:2-15
17. Lu HQ. Quantitative evaluation of image enhancement algorithms. Proc SPIE 1991; 1453:223-234
18. Ahumada AJ, Null CH. Image quality: a multidimensional problem [Chapter]. Watson AB, Editor. Digital Images and Human Vision. 1st ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press 1993; 141-148
19. Good WF, Maitz G, Gur D. JPEG compatible data compression of mammograms. Digital Imaging 1994. 7(3):123-132