Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy
Abstract
The mainstream approach to image quality assessment has centered around accurately modeling the single most relevant strategy employed by the human visual system (HVS) when judging image quality (e.g., detecting visible differences, and extracting image structure/information). In this work, we suggest that a single strategy may not be sufficient; rather, we advocate that the HVS uses multiple strategies to determine image quality. For images containing near-threshold distortions, the image is most apparent, and thus the HVS attempts to look past the image and look for the distortions (a detection-based strategy). For images containing clearly visible distortions, the distortions are most apparent, and thus the HVS attempts to look past the distortion and look for the image's subject matter (an appearance-based strategy). Here, we present a quality assessment method [most apparent distortion (MAD)], which attempts to explicitly model these two separate strategies. Local luminance and contrast masking are used to estimate detection-based perceived distortion in high-quality images, whereas changes in the local statistics of spatial-frequency components are used to estimate appearance-based perceived distortion in low-quality images. We show that a combination of these two measures can perform well in predicting subjective ratings of image quality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
For high-quality images, MAD should obtain its value mostly from the detection-based strategy, whereas for low-quality images, MAD should obtain its value mostly from the appearance-based strategy.
“As described in Ref. 26, for high-quality images, MAD should obtain its value mostly from , whereas for low-quality images, MAD should obtain its value mostly from .”
From ViS3: an algorithm for video quality assessment via analysis of spatial and spatiotemporal slices (2014) · cites this paper as [26]
The MAD algorithm is composed of two separate strategies: a detection-based strategy and an appearance-based strategy.
“The MAD algorithm is composed of two separate strategies: (1) a detection-based strategy, which computes the perceived distortion due to visual detection (denoted by ) and (2) an appearance-based strategy, which computes the perceived distortion due to visual appearance changes (denoted by ).”
From ViS3: an algorithm for video quality assessment via analysis of spatial and spatiotemporal slices (2014) · cites this paper as [26]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 64 · Cited by 1,953
- Authors
- Larson, E. C., & Chandler, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Oklahoma State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Larson, Eric C.
- Venue
- Journal of Electronic Imaging
- Publisher
- SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 01
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 1017-9909 (ISSN-L)
- 1560-229X
- OpenAlex
- W2171349048
- Cited by
- 1,953
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 81 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 143 · 2023: 151 · 2022: 155 · 2021: 159 · 2020: 157 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 163 · 2017: 143 · 2016: 151 · 2015: 107 · 2014: 90 · 2013: 70 · 2012: 50
- FWCI
- 56.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Electronic Imaging (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 › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
- Keywords
- full-reference image quality assessment, luminance masking, contrast masking
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