Advertisement

Image quality assessment improvement via local gray-scale fluctuation measurement

Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

When individuals view an image, they form an opinion by considering only some parts of the image, which are defined as regions of interest. Based on this hypothesis, in this paper, a local gray-scale fluctuation measurement is used to select image patches with rich structural information and texture that can attract human visual perception. First, a gray-scale fluctuation map (GFM) is calculated based on a specific primitive. The pixel values in the GFM reflect the gray-scale fluctuation level of the pixel in the same location in the corresponding image. Second, the patches are selected via the gray-scale fluctuation conditions in the GFM. Third, existing image quality assessment (IQA) methods are used to measure the quality of each patch. Additionally, the quality assessment results of each patch are combined as the quality score of the entire image. The experimental results on five open databases demonstrate that the proposed method has a positive effect on IQA for existing methods. Additionally, the proposed method can improve the prediction accuracy of the quality assessment of diversely distorted types.

Keywords

Gray-scale fluctuation Image quality assessment Patch selection Full-reference 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61673220).

Author contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: Xichen Yang. Performed the experiments: Xichen Yang. Analyzed the data: Xichen yang, Quansen Sun. Wrote and reviewed the paper: Xichen yang, Quansen Sun, Tianshu Wang. Approved the final version of the paper: Xichen yang, Quansen Sun, Tianshu Wang.

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests

The authors have declared that there is no competing interests exist.

References

  1. 1.
    Alaei A, Raveaux R, Conte D (2017) Image quality assessment based on regions of interest. SIViP 11(4):673–680Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhateja V, Kalsi A, Srivastava A (2015) Image similarity metric (ISIM): a reduced reference image quality assessment approach. CSI Transactions on ICT 3(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Damera-Venkata N, Kite T D, Geisler W S. (2000) et al. Image quality assessment based on a degradation model. IEEE Trans Image Process, 9(4):636–650Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ji H, Liu C (2008) Motion blur identification from image gradients. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2008. CVPR 2008. IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 1–8Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larson EC, Chandler DM (2010) Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy. J Electron Imaging 19(1):011006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu GH, Yang JY (2008) Image retrieval based on the texton co-occurrence matrix. Pattern Recogn 41(12):3521–3527CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu Y, Zhang X, Cui J, et al (2010) Visual analysis of child-adult interactive behaviors in video sequences. International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia. IEEE, 26–33Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu A, Lin W, Narwaria M (2012) Image quality assessment based on gradient similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process 21(4):1500MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu D, Xu Y, Quan Y et al (2014) Reduced reference image quality assessment using regularity of phase congruency. Signal Process Image Commun 29(8):844–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Han L, et al (2015) Action2Activity: recognizing complex activities from sensor data. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1617–1623Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Liu L et al (2016) From action to activity: sensor-based activity recognition. Neurocomputing 181:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liu L, Cheng L, Liu Y, et al (2016) Recognizing complex activities by a probabilistic interval-based model. Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1266–1272Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lu Y, Wei Y, Liu L et al (2017) Towards unsupervised physical activity recognition using smartphone accelerometers. Multimed Tools Appl 76(8):10701–10719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitsa T, Varkur K L (1993) Evaluation of contrast sensitivity functions for the formulation of quality measures incorporated in halftoning algorithms. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing IEEE, 5: 301–304Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moorthy AK, Bovik AC (2011) Blind image quality assessment: from natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process A Publ IEEE Signal Process Soc 20(12):3350–3364MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ponomarenko N, Lukin V, Zelensky A et al (2004) TID2008 - a database for evaluation of full-reference visual quality assessment metrics. Adv Mod Radioelectron 10:30–45Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ponomarenko N, Jin L, Ieremeiev O et al (2015) Image database TID2013: peculiarities, results and perspectives. Signal Process Image Commun 30:57–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saad MA, Bovik AC, Charrier C (2012) Blind image quality assessment: a natural scene statistics approach in the DCT domain. IEEE Trans Image Process A Publ IEEE Signal Process Soc 21(8):3339–3352MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sheikh HR, Bovik AC (2006) Image information and visual quality. IEEE Trans Image Process A Publ IEEE Signal Process Soc 15(2):430–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheikh HR, Bovik AC, Veciana GD (2005) An information fidelity criterion for image quality assessment using natural scene statistics. IEEE Trans Image Process 14(12):2117–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheikh HR, Sabir MF, Bovik AC (2006) A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Trans Image Process A Publ IEEE Signal Process Soc 15(11):3440–3451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun T, Ding S, Chen W et al (2014) No-reference image quality assessment based on gradient histogram response. Comput Electr Eng 54:330–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC (2002) A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Process Lett 9(3):81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC (2009) Mean squared error: love it or leave it? A new look at signal Fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Process Mag 26(1):98–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR et al (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans Image Process A Publ IEEE Signal Process Soc 13(4):600–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang Z, Simoncelli E P, Bovik A C. (2004) Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. Signals, systems and computers, 2004. Conference Record of the Thirty-Seventh Asilomar Conference on. IEEE, 398–1402 Vol.2Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu J, Qi F, Shi G (2012) Self-similarity based structural regularity for just noticeable difference estimation. J Vis Commun Image Represent 23(6):845–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xie X, Livermore C (2016) A pivot-hinged, multilayer SU-8 micro motion amplifier assembled by a self-aligned approach. IEEE, International Conference on MICRO Electro Mechanical Systems. IEEE, 75–78Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xie X, Livermore C (2017) Passively self-aligned assembly of compact barrel hinges for high-performance, out-of-plane mems actuators. IEEE, International Conference on MICRO Electro Mechanical Systems. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Xie X, Zaitsev Y, Velásquezgarcía LF et al (2014a) Scalable, MEMS-enabled, vibrational tactile actuators for high resolution tactile displays. J Micromech Microeng 24(12):125014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xie X, Zaitsev Y, Velasquezgarcía LF, Teller SJ, Livermore C (2014b) Compact, scalable, high-resolution, MEMS-enabled tactile displays. In: Proc. of solid-state sensors, actuators, and microsystems workshop, pp 127–30Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang X (2014) Completely blind image quality assessment based on gray-scale fluctuations. International Conference on Digital Image Processing 915916Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yang X, Sun Q, Wang T (2016) Image quality assessment via spatial structural analysis. Comput Electr Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2016.08.014
  34. 34.
    Yuan Y, Guo Q, Image LX (2015) Quality assessment: a sparse learning way. Neurocomputing 159(1):227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang L, Zhang L, Mou X et al (2011) FSIM: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans Image Process 20(8):2378–2386MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringNanjing University of Science and TechnologyNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations