Cited by 1,763Image and Video Quality AssessmentDigital Media Forensic DetectionImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

Blind Image Quality Assessment: From Natural Scene Statistics to Perceptual Quality

Moorthy, A. K., Bovik, A. C.·2011·IEEE Transactions on Image Processing

Abstract

Our approach to blind image quality assessment (IQA) is based on the hypothesis that natural scenes possess certain statistical properties which are altered in the presence of distortion, rendering them un-natural; and that by characterizing this un-naturalness using scene statistics, one can identify the distortion afflicting the image and perform no-reference (NR) IQA. Based on this theory, we propose an (NR)/blind algorithm-the Distortion Identification-based Image Verity and INtegrity Evaluation (DIIVINE) index-that assesses the quality of a distorted image without need for a reference image. DIIVINE is based on a 2-stage framework involving distortion identification followed by distortion-specific quality assessment. DIIVINE is capable of assessing the quality of a distorted image across multiple distortion categories, as against most NR IQA algorithms that are distortion-specific in nature. DIIVINE is based on natural scene statistics which govern the behavior of natural images. In this paper, we detail the principles underlying DIIVINE, the statistical features extracted and their relevance to perception and thoroughly evaluate the algorithm on the popular LIVE IQA database. Further, we compare the performance of DIIVINE against leading full-reference (FR) IQA algorithms and demonstrate that DIIVINE is statistically superior to the often used measure of peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and statistically equivalent to the popular structural similarity index (SSIM). A software release of DIIVINE has been made available online: "http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality/DIIVINE_release.zip" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality/DIIVINE_release.zip for public use and evaluation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tip.2011.2147325

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moorthy, A. K., & Bovik, A. C.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
Published
2011-12
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
3350-3364
ISSN
  • 1057-7149 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-0042
OpenAlex
W2129644086
Cited by
1,763
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 112 · 2024: 129 · 2023: 123 · 2022: 148 · 2021: 139 · 2020: 143 · 2019: 156 · 2018: 179 · 2017: 156 · 2016: 133 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 95 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 22
FWCI
61.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Image Processing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image and Video Quality Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
no-reference image quality assessment, natural scene statistics, perceptual image quality, image distortion, full-reference image quality assessment, structural similarity index, PSNR

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