Image utility assessment and a relationship with image quality assessment

Present quality assessment (QA) algorithms aim to generate scores for natural images consistent with subjective scores for the quality assessment task. For the quality assessment task, human observers evaluate a natural image based on its perceptual resemblance to a reference. Natural images communicate useful information to humans, and this paper investigates the utility assessment task, where human observers evaluate the usefulness of a natural image as a surrogate for a reference. Current QA algorithms implicitly assess utility insofar as an image that exhibits strong perceptual resemblance to a reference is also of high utility. However, a perceived quality score is not a proxy for a perceived utility score: a decrease in perceived quality may not affect the perceived utility. Two experiments are conducted to investigate the relationship between the quality assessment and utility assessment tasks. The results from these experiments provide evidence that any algorithm optimized to predict perceived quality scores cannot immediately predict perceived utility scores. Several QA algorithms are evaluated in terms of their ability to predict subjective scores for the quality and utility assessment tasks. Among the QA algorithms evaluated, the visual information fidelity (VIF) criterion, which is frequently reported to provide the highest correlation with perceived quality, predicted both perceived quality and utility scores reasonably. The consistent performance of VIF for both the tasks raised suspicions in light of the evidence from the psychophysical experiments. A thorough analysis of VIF revealed that it artificially emphasizes evaluations at finer image scales (i.e., higher spatial frequencies) over those at coarser image scales (i.e., lower spatial frequencies). A modified implementation of VIF, denoted VIF*, is presented that provides statistically significant improvement over VIF for the quality assessment task and statistically worse performance for the utility assessment task. A novel utility assessment algorithm, referred to as the natural image contour evaluation (NICE), is introduced that conducts a comparison of the contours of a test image to those of a reference image across multiple image scales to score the test image. NICE demonstrates a viable departure from traditional QA algorithms that incorporate energy-based approaches and is capable of predicting perceived utility scores.

[1]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISONS , 1952 .

[2]  D. Field,et al.  What's constant in contrast constancy? The effects of scaling on the perceived contrast of bandpass patterns , 1995, Vision Research.

[3]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Image quality assessment based on a degradation model , 2000, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[4]  Patrick C. Teo,et al.  Perceptual image distortion , 1994, Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Image Processing.

[5]  Sheila S. Hemami,et al.  Analyzing the role of visual structure in the recognition of natural image content with multi-scale SSIM , 2008, Electronic Imaging.

[6]  P. O. Bishop,et al.  Spatial vision. , 1971, Annual review of psychology.

[7]  Sheila S. Hemami,et al.  Understanding and simplifying the structural similarity metric , 2008, 2008 15th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing.

[8]  M. Georgeson,et al.  Contrast constancy: deblurring in human vision by spatial frequency channels. , 1975, The Journal of physiology.

[9]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Kyle J Myers,et al.  Objective assessment of image quality. IV. Application to adaptive optics. , 2006, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[11]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons , 1952 .

[12]  Douglas E. Critchlow,et al.  Paired comparison, triple comparison, and ranking experiments as generalized linear models, and their implementation on GLIM , 1991 .

[13]  Thomas Brox,et al.  On the Equivalence of Soft Wavelet Shrinkage, Total Variation Diffusion, Total Variation Regularization, and SIDEs , 2004, SIAM J. Numer. Anal..

[14]  D.J. Granrath,et al.  The role of human visual models in image processing , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[15]  L. Rudin,et al.  Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms , 1992 .

[16]  Charles A. Poynton,et al.  Rehabilitation of gamma , 1998, Electronic Imaging.

[17]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  Scale Mixtures of Gaussians and the Statistics of Natural Images , 1999, NIPS.

[18]  Michael Elad,et al.  Submitted to Ieee Transactions on Image Processing Image Decomposition via the Combination of Sparse Representations and a Variational Approach , 2022 .

[19]  Gustavo de Veciana,et al.  An information fidelity criterion for image quality assessment using natural scene statistics , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[20]  Scott J. Daly,et al.  Visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[21]  R. J. Safranek,et al.  A perceptually tuned sub-band image coder with image dependent quantization and post-quantization data compression , 1989, International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing,.

[22]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Contrast masking in human vision. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[23]  Jr. Thomas G. Stockham,et al.  Image processing in the context of a visual model , 1972 .

[24]  Sheila S. Hemami,et al.  VSNR: A Wavelet-Based Visual Signal-to-Noise Ratio for Natural Images , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[25]  Alan C. Bovik,et al.  Image information and visual quality , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing.

[26]  David J. Sakrison,et al.  The effects of a visual fidelity criterion of the encoding of images , 1974, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[27]  John D. Villasenor,et al.  Visibility of wavelet quantization noise , 1997, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[28]  Thrasyvoulos N. Pappas,et al.  Perceptual criteria for image quality evaluation , 2005 .

[29]  Zhou Wang,et al.  Multi-scale structural similarity for image quality assessment , 2003 .

[30]  William T. Freeman,et al.  Presented at: 2nd Annual IEEE International Conference on Image , 1995 .

[31]  Sheila S. Hemami,et al.  Dynamic contrast-based quantization for lossy wavelet image compression , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[32]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[33]  W A Pearlman A visual system model and a new distortion measure in the context of image processing. , 1978, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[34]  D. Chandler,et al.  Effects of natural images on the detectability of simple and compound wavelet subband quantization distortions. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[35]  Jeffrey Lubin,et al.  The use of psychophysical data and models in the analysis of display system performance , 1993 .

[36]  Edward R. Dougherty,et al.  Morphological methods in image and signal processing , 1988 .

[37]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Random Cascades on Wavelet Trees and Their Use in Analyzing and Modeling Natural Images , 2001 .

[38]  Jay L. Devore,et al.  Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences , 1982 .

[39]  H.H. Barrett,et al.  Model observers for assessment of image quality , 1993, 2002 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record.

[40]  Stéphane Mallat,et al.  Characterization of Signals from Multiscale Edges , 2011, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[41]  Patrick Le Callet,et al.  Objective quality assessment of color images based on a generic perceptual reduced reference , 2008, Signal Process. Image Commun..

[42]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  DCT quantization matrices visually optimized for individual images , 1993, Electronic Imaging.