Advertisement

Image Quality Assessment Using the SSIM and the Just Noticeable Difference Paradigm

  • Jeremy R. Flynn
  • Steve Ward
  • Julian AbichIV
  • David Poole
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8019)

Abstract

The structural similarity index (SSIM) has been shown to be a superior objective image quality metric. A web-based pilot experiment was conducted with the goal of quantifying, through the use of a sample of human participants, a trend in SSIM values showing when the human visual system can begin to perceive distortions applied to reference images. The just noticeable difference paradigm was used to determine the point at which at least 50% of participants were unable to discern between compressed and uncompressed grayscale images. For four images, this point was at an SSIM value of 96, while for two images it was at 92, for an average of 95. These results suggest that, despite the wide differences in the type of image used, the point at which a human observer cannot determine that compression has been used hovers around an SSIM value of 95.

Keywords

Applied cognitive psychology Designing for pleasure of use Display design Formal error prediction techniques Human error Human Factors / System Integration Psychophysics for display design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rainie, L., Brenner, J., Purcell, K.: Photos and videos as social currency online (2012), http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Online-Pictures.aspx
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Imgur Site Stats, http://imgur.com/stats/month
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Shen, M.Y., Kuo, C.C.J.: Review of Postprocessing Techniques for Compression Artifact Removal. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 9, 2–14 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skodras, A., Christopoulos, C., Ebrahimi, T.: The JPEG 2000 Still Image Compression Standard. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 18, 36–58 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richardson, G.: Jpeg Compression (2003), http://photo.net/learn/jpeg/
  8. 8.
    Eckert, M.P., Bradley, A.P.: Perceptual Quality Metrics Applied to Still Image Compression. Signal Process. 70, 177–200 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image Quality Assessment: From Error Visibility to Structural Similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13, 600–612 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    University of Southern California’s SIPI Image Database, http://sipi.usc.edu
  11. 11.
    Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Lu, L.: Why is Image Quality Assessment So Difficult? In: IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. IV-3313–IV-3316. IEEE Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., Chun, M.M.: The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception. J. Neurosci. 17, 4302–4311 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chan, S.: That popup survey tool for Fresh & New feedback (2011), http://www.freshandnew.org/2011/01/that-popup-survey-tool-for-fresh-new-feedback/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy R. Flynn
    • 1
  • Steve Ward
    • 1
  • Julian AbichIV
    • 1
  • David Poole
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations