The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Perceptual image distortion:
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Contrast masking has been modeled using a mechanism of contrast gain control that often takes the form of a divisive normalization [63], [25], [64].”
From Motion Tuned Spatio-Temporal Quality Assessment of Natural Videos (2010) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Several HVS modeling based IQA algorithms account for contrast masking in human vision using divisive normalization models of contrast gain control [25], [64], [24].”
From Motion Tuned Spatio-Temporal Quality Assessment of Natural Videos (2010) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“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].”
From Motion Tuned Spatio-Temporal Quality Assessment of Natural Videos (2010) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–105 of 105
Incorporating and Understanding the User-Perspective
Gulliver, S. R. (2006) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-860-4.ch004
Tatouage des images médicales partagées
Karasad, M. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/42584764za3fez47ebzb908z2669f5116d39
Content-Adaptive Video Enhancement via Agentic Super-Resolution
Khutafale, I. P., Mogre, D. R., Shinganwadikar, S., et al. (2026) · doi:10.1109/icicds70526.2026.11604735
Distributed multimedia quality: the user perspective
Gulliver, S. R. (2004) · Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London)
Metadata
- Authors
- Teo, P. C., & Heeger, D. J.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- ORCID
- Heeger, David J.
- 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
