VQone MATLAB toolbox: A graphical experiment builder for image and video quality evaluations: VQone MATLAB toolbox

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 138-150

  Nuutinen, Mikko ^a   Virtanen, Toni ^a   Rummukainen, Olli ^b   Häkkinen, Jukka ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Computer software; Image quality; Image rating; MATLAB

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; SOFTWARE; VIDEORECORDING;

HUMANS; SOFTWARE; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 84921333922     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0555-y     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bovik, A. (2013). Automatic prediction of perceptual image and video quality. Proceedings of the IEEE.
2. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 433–436.
3. Chandler, D. (2013). Seven challenges in image quality assessment: past, present, and future research. ISRN Signal Processing, 2013, 905685.
4. Coco, M., & Keller, F. (2014). Classification of visual and linguistic tasks using eye-movement features. Journal of Vision, 14 (3), 11.
5. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M. R., Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: A new graphic interactive environment for designing psychology experiments. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 25 (2), 257–271.
6. Geller, A., Schleifer, I., Sederberg, P., Jacobs, J., Kahana, M. (2007). PyEPL: A cross-platform experiment-programming library. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (4), 950–958.
7. ISO 20462-1. (2005). Photography - psychophysical experimental methods for estimating image quality - part 1: Overview of psychophysical elements (Norm No. ISO 20462-1). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
8. ISO 20462-2. (2005). Photography - psychophysical experimental methods for estimating image quality - part 2: Triplet comparison method (Norm No. ISO 20462-2). Geneva, Switzerland: ISO.
9. ITU-R BT.500. (2012). Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television pictures (Norm No. ITU-R Recommendation BT.500-13). Geneva, Switzerland: ITU.
10. ITU-R Rec. BT.1788. (2007). Methodology for the subjective assessment of video quality in multimedia applications (Norm No. ITU-R Recommendation PBT.1788). Geneva, Switzerland: ITU.
11. ITU-T Rec. P. 910. (2008). Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications (Norm No. ITU-R Recommendation P.910). Geneva, Switzerland: ITU.
12. Leisti, T., Radun, J., Virtanen, T., Nyman, G., Häkkinen, J. (2014). Concurrent explanations can enhance visual decision-making. Acta Psychologica, 145, 65–74.
13. Lidestam, B. (2014). Audiovisual presentation of video-recorded stimuli at a high frame rate. Behavior Research Methods, 46 (2), 499–516.
14. Mantiuk, R., Tomaszewska, A., Mantiuk, R. (2012). Comparison of four subjective methods for image quality assessment. Comp. Graph. Forum, 31 (8), 2478–2491.
15. Mathot, S., Schreij, D., Theeuwes, J. (2012). Opensesame: an open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44 (2), 314–324.
16. Murthy, A., & Karam, L. (2010). A MATLAB-based framework for image and video quality evaluation. In 2010 Second International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 242–247).
17. Nuutinen, M., Virtanen, T., Leisti, T., Mustonen, T., Radun, J., Häkkinen, J. (2014). A new method for evaluating the subjective image quality of photographs: Dynamic reference. Multimedia Tools and Applications. doi: 10.1007/s11042-014-2410-7
18. Nyman, G., Radun, J., Leisti, T., Oja, J., Ojanen, H., Olives, J.L. (2006). What do users really perceive: Probing the subjective image quality (Vol. 6059). San Jose, CA.
19. Peirce, J. (2007). PsychoPy - Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162 (1–2), 8–13.
20. Radun, J., Leisti, T., Virtanen, T., Häkkinen, J., Vuori, T., Nyman, G. (2008). Evaluating the multivariate visual quality performance of image-processing components. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept., 7 (3).
21. Rensink, R. (2014). Limits to the usability of iconic memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 971.
22. Silverstein, D., & Farrell, J. (2001). Efficient method for paired comparison. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 10 (2), 394–398.
23. Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74 (11), 1–29.
24. To, M., Gilchrist, I., Troscianko, T., Tolhurst, D. (2011). Discrimination of natural scenes in central and peripheral vision.
25. Vatolin, D., & Petrov, O. MSU Perceptual Video Quality tool. http://compression.ru/video/quality_measure/perceptual_video_quality_tool_en.html.
26. Virtanen, T., Nuutinen, M., Vaahteranoksa, M., Oittinen, P., Häkkinen, J. (2014). CID2013: A database for evaluating no-reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(1), 390–402.