Cited by 105Image and Video Quality AssessmentImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesDigital Media Forensic Detection

Perceptual image distortion:

Teo, Patrick C., Heeger, David J.·1994·SPIE Proceedings

Abstract

In this paper, we present a perceptual distortion measure that predicts image integrity far better than mean-squared error. This perceptual distortion measure is based on a model of human visual processing that fits empirical measurements of: (1) the response properties of neurons in the primary visual cortex, and (2) the psychophysics of spatial pattern detection. We also illustrate the usefulness of the model in measuring perceptual distortion in real images.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1117/12.172664

Cites

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.

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?

  • Contrast masking has been modeled using a mechanism of contrast gain control that often takes the form of a divisive normalization.

    “Contrast masking has been modeled using a mechanism of contrast gain control that often takes the form of a divisive normalization [63], [25], [64].”
  • Several HVS modeling based IQA algorithms account for contrast masking in human vision using divisive normalization models of contrast gain control.

    “Several HVS modeling based IQA algorithms account for contrast masking in human vision using divisive normalization models of contrast gain control [25], [64], [24].”
  • The divisive inhibition pool and divisive normalization model used in Spatial MOVIE differ from other contrast gain control models.

    “The divisive inhibition pool and divisive normalization model used here differ from other contrast gain control models. For example, Lubin models divisive inhibition within the same sub-band, while the Teo and Watson models seek to account for cross-channel inhibition [24], [25], [64].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teo, P. C., & Heeger, D. J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
SPIE Proceedings
Publisher
SPIE
Published
1994-05-01
Volume
2179
Pages
127-141
ISSN
0277-786X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2001896471
Cited by
104
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.14
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE (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
image quality assessment, spatial pattern detection, psychophysics, mean squared error, image integrity

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