Is there hope for predicting human visual quality experience?

One of the most important research goals in media science is a computational model for the human perception of visual quality, that is, how to predict the subjective visual quality experience. This research area has converged to developing new and investigating existing lower-level measurable quantities, physical, visual or computational, which could explain the high level experience. A principal research question, whether the prediction of the visual quality experience based on any lower-level objective measurements is possible at all, has received much less attention. This question is investigated in this study. First, we describe a large psychological experiment where true factors of the human quality experience are pair-wise resolved for dedicatedly selected samples. Second, we describe a ranking measure which reveals the relationship between selected measurable quantities and the human evaluation. Finally, the presented ranking method is used to provide quantitative evidence that visual quality experience can be predicted using lower-level measurable quantities. This result is novel and by simultaneously revealing the underlying lower-level factors it should re-direct the future research towards the true model.

[1]  Hannu Saarelma,et al.  Objective quality potential measures of natural color images , 1998 .

[2]  Hyeonjoon Moon,et al.  The FERET Evaluation Methodology for Face-Recognition Algorithms , 2000, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[3]  Toni Virtanen,et al.  Explaining multivariate image quality-Interpretation-Based Quality Approach , 2006 .

[4]  David Wolin.  Enhanced Mottle Measurement Method , 2002, PICS.

[5]  Yalr Kipman.  Image Quality Metrics for Printers and Media , 1998, PICS.

[6]  Nashua,et al.  Enhanced Mottle Measurement , 2002 .

[7]  Heikki Kälviäinen,et al.  Automated Mottling Assessment of Colored Printed Areas , 2007, SCIA.

[8]  E. Peli.  Contrast in complex images. , 1990, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[9]  G. Gescheider.  Psychophysics : method, theory, and application , 1985 .

[10]  Stefan Winkler,et al.  A no-reference perceptual blur metric , 2002, Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing.

[11]  Joni-Kristian Kämäräinen,et al.  Visual Print Quality Evaluation Using Computational Features , 2007, ISVC.

[12]  P. Groenen,et al.  Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications , 1999 .

[13]  Pirkko Oittinen,et al.  Framework for modeling visual printed image quality from the paper perspective , 2008, Electronic Imaging.

[14]  Joni-Kristian Kämäräinen,et al.  Quantified and Perceived Unevenness of Solid Printed Areas , 2005, CIARP.

[15]  Sei-Wang Chen,et al.  A non-parametric blur measure based on edge analysis for image processing applications , 2004, IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, 2004..

[16]  Robert A. Frazor,et al.  Local luminance and contrast in natural images , 2006, Vision Research.

[17]  Peter G. Engeldrum,et al.  Psychometric Scaling: A Toolkit for Imaging Systems Development , 2000 .

[18]  Jan-Erik Levlin,et al.  Pulp and Paper Testing , 2000 .

[19]  John Immerkær,et al.  Fast Noise Variance Estimation , 1996, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[20]  Per-Åke Johansson,et al.  A comparison of different print mottle evaluation models , 2006 .

[21]  Edul N. Dalal,et al.  INCITS W1.1 development update: appearance-based image quality standards for printers , 2008, Electronic Imaging.

[22]  Jukka Häkkinen,et al.  Content and quality: Interpretation-based estimation of image quality , 2008, TAP.