Cited by 252Image and Video Quality AssessmentImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesDigital Media Forensic Detection

Image Quality Assessment Based on Multiscale Geometric Analysis

Xinbo Gao, Wen Lu, Dacheng Tao, Xuelong Li·2009·IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

Abstract

Reduced-reference (RR) image quality assessment (IQA) has been recognized as an effective and efficient way to predict the visual quality of distorted images. The current standard is the wavelet-domain natural image statistics model (WNISM), which applies the Kullback-Leibler divergence between the marginal distributions of wavelet coefficients of the reference and distorted images to measure the image distortion. However, WNISM fails to consider the statistical correlations of wavelet coefficients in different subbands and the visual response characteristics of the mammalian cortical simple cells. In addition, wavelet transforms are optimal greedy approximations to extract singularity structures, so they fail to explicitly extract the image geometric information, e.g., lines and curves. Finally, wavelet coefficients are dense for smooth image edge contours. In this paper, to target the aforementioned problems in IQA, we develop a novel framework for IQA to mimic the human visual system (HVS) by incorporating the merits from multiscale geometric analysis (MGA), contrast sensitivity function (CSF), and the Weber's law of just noticeable difference (JND). In the proposed framework, MGA is utilized to decompose images and then extract features to mimic the multichannel structure of HVS. Additionally, MGA offers a series of transforms including wavelet, curvelet, bandelet, contourlet, wavelet-based contourlet transform (WBCT), and hybrid wavelets and directional filter banks (HWD), and different transforms capture different types of image geometric information. CSF is applied to weight coefficients obtained by MGA to simulate the appearance of images to observers by taking into account many of the nonlinearities inherent in HVS. JND is finally introduced to produce a noticeable variation in sensory experience. Thorough empirical studies are carried out upon the LIVE database against subjective mean opinion score (MOS) and demonstrate that 1) the proposed framework has good consistency with subjective perception values and the objective assessment results can well reflect the visual quality of images, 2) different transforms in MGA under the new framework perform better than the standard WNISM and some of them even perform better than the standard full-reference IQA model, i.e., the mean structural similarity index, and 3) HWD performs best among all transforms in MGA under the framework.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tip.2009.2018014

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, X., Lu, W., Tao, D., & Li, X.
Affiliations
  • Xidian University (CN)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • University of London (GB)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
Published
2009-07
Volume
18
Issue
7
Pages
1409-1423
ISSN
  • 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0042
OpenAlex
W2152404931
Cited by
252
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 20
FWCI
19.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) (submittedVersion)
  • UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
reduced-reference image quality assessment, multiscale geometric analysis, contrast sensitivity function, just noticeable difference, human visual system modeling, wavelet coefficient statistics, curvelet transform, bandelet transform, contourlet transform

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review