Influence of sampling on target recognition and identification

Two perception experiments are conducted to quantify the relationship between imager sampling artifacts and target recognition and identification performance using that imager. The results of these experiments show that in-band aliasing (aliasing that overlaps the baseband signal) does not degrade target identification performance, but out- of-band aliasing (such as visible display raster) degrades identification performance significantly. Aliasing had less impact on the recognition task than the identification task, but both in-band and out-of-band aliasing moderately degrades recognition performance. Based on these experiments and other results reported in the literature, it appears that in-band aliasing has a strong effect on low-level discrimination tasks such as point (hot-spot) detection; out-of-band aliasing has only a minor impact on these tasks. For high-level discrimination tasks such as target identification, however, out-of-band aliasing has a significant impact on performance, whereas in-band aliasing has a minor affect. For intermediate-level discrimination tasks such as target recognition, both in-band and out-of-band aliasing have a moderate impact on performance. Based on data from the perception experiments, the modulation transferfunction (MTF) squeeze model is developed. The degraded performance due to undersampling is modeled as an effective increase in system blur or, equivalently, a contraction or "squeeze" in the MTF. An equation is developed that quantifies the amount of MTF squeeze or contraction to apply to the system MTF to account for the performance degradation caused by sampling.

[1]  F. O. Huck,et al.  Information Density And Efficiency Of Two-Dimensional (2-D) Sampled Imagery , 1981, Optics & Photonics.

[2]  Thomas H. Cook,et al.  Spatial aliasing effects in ground vehicle IR imagery , 1992, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[3]  J. C. Fontanella,et al.  The Definition of the OTF and the Measurement of Aliasing for Sampled Imaging Systems , 1982 .

[4]  Stephen K. Park,et al.  Aliasing as noise: a quantitative and qualitative assessment , 1993, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[5]  Carlo H. Séquin,et al.  Interlacing in charge-coupled imaging devices , 1973 .

[6]  Otto H. Schade Image Reproduction by a Line Raster Process , 1973 .

[7]  R A Schowengerdt,et al.  Image sampling, reconstruction, and the effect of sample-scene phasing. , 1982, Applied optics.

[8]  David S. Flynn,et al.  Formalism for analyzing spatial, spectral, and temporal effects in a hardware-in-the-loop system involving a pixelized projector and a passive imaging sensor , 1996, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[9]  James A. Dawson,et al.  Resolving the differences in oversampled and undersampled imaging sensors: updated target acquisition modeling strategies for staring and scanning FLIR systems , 1992, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[10]  Curtis M. Webb Results of laboratory evaluation of staring arrays , 1990, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[11]  Wolfgang Wittenstein,et al.  Range performance of two staring imagers: presentation of the field trial and data analysis , 1996, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[12]  Gerald C. Holst Effects of phasing on MRT target visibility , 1991, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[13]  Richard Legault,et al.  The Aliasing Problems in Two-Dimensional Sampled Imagery , 1973 .

[14]  Richard H. Vollmerhausen Impact of display modulation transfer function on the quality of sampled imagery , 1996, Defense, Security, and Sensing.

[15]  James D. Howe,et al.  Study of the effects of focal plane array design parameters on ATR performance , 1993, Defense, Security, and Sensing.