1932

Abstract

Image quality assessment (IQA) models aim to establish a quantitative relationship between visual images and their quality as perceived by human observers. IQA modeling plays a special bridging role between vision science and engineering practice, both as a test-bed for vision theories and computational biovision models and as a powerful tool that could potentially have a profound impact on a broad range of image processing, computer vision, and computer graphics applications for design, optimization, and evaluation purposes. The growth of IQA research has accelerated over the past two decades. In this review, we present an overview of IQA methods from a Bayesian perspective, with the goals of unifying a wide spectrum of IQA approaches under a common framework and providing useful references to fundamental concepts accessible to vision scientists and image processing practitioners. We discuss the implications of the successes and limitations of modern IQA methods for biological vision and the prospect for vision science to inform the design of future artificial vision systems. (The detailed model taxonomy can be found at .)

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100419-120301
2021-09-15
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/vision/7/1/annurev-vision-100419-120301.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100419-120301&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahumada AJ. 1993. Computational image quality metrics: a review. SID Digest 24:305–8
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Athar S, Rehman A, Wang Z. 2017. Quality assessment of images undergoing multiple distortion stages. IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Beijing, China3175–79 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Athar S, Wang Z. 2019. A comprehensive performance evaluation of image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Access 7:140030–70
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barlow HB. 1961. Possible principles underlying the transformation of sensory messages. Sens. Commun. 1:217–34
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Berardino A, Laparra V, Ballé J, Simoncelli EP. 2017. Eigen-distortions of hierarchical representations. Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA3530–39 Red Hook, NY: Curran Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernardo JM, Smith AF. 2009. Bayesian Theory. New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bianco S, Celona L, Napoletano P, Schettini R. 2018. On the use of deep learning for blind image quality assessment. Signal Image Video Process. 12:2355–62
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bosse S, Maniry D, Müller KR, Wiegand T, Samek W. 2017. Deep neural networks for no-reference and full-reference image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 27:1206–19
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bradley AP. 1999. A wavelet visible difference predictor. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 8:5717–30
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunet D, Vass J, Vrscay ER, Wang Z. 2012. Geodesics of the structural similarity index. Appl. Math. Lett. 25:111921–25
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brunet D, Vrscay ER, Wang Z. 2011. On the mathematical properties of the structural similarity index. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21:41488–99
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Carlson CR, Cohen RW. 1980. A simple psychophysical model for predicting the visibility of displayed information. Proc. Soc. Inform. Display 21:3229–45
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chandler DM. 2013. Seven challenges in image quality assessment: past, present, and future research. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2013:1–53
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chandler DM, Hemami SS. 2007. VSNR: a wavelet-based visual signal-to-noise ratio for natural images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 16:92284–98
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chang HW, Yang H, Gan Y, Wang MH. 2013. Sparse feature fidelity for perceptual image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 22:104007–18
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cover TM, Thomas JA. 1991. Elements of Information Theory New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Daly S. 1992. The visible difference predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. Proc. SPIE 1666:2–15
    [Google Scholar]
  18. De Finetti B. 2017. Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Deng Y, Loy CC, Tang X. 2017. Image aesthetic assessment: an experimental survey. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 34:480–106
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ding K, Ma K, Wang S, Simoncelli EP. 2020. Image quality assessment: unifying structure and texture similarity. arXiv:2004.07728 [cs.CV]
  21. Duanmu Z, Zeng K, Ma K, Rehman A, Wang Z. 2016. A quality-of-experience index for streaming video. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 11:1154–66
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Engelke U, Kaprykowsky H, Zepernick HJ, Ndjiki-Nya P. 2011. Visual attention in quality assessment. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 28:650–59
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fang Y, Zhu H, Zeng Y, Ma K, Wang Z 2020. Perceptual quality assessment of smartphone photography. Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Seattle, WA3677–86 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Gao F, Tao D, Gao X, Li X. 2015. Learning to rank for blind image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 26:102275–90
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gao F, Wang Y, Li P, Tan M, Yu J, Zhu Y. 2017. Deepsim: deep similarity for image quality assessment. Neurocomputing 257:104–14
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ghadiyaram D, Bovik AC. 2015. Massive online crowdsourced study of subjective and objective picture quality. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 25:1372–87
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Grant E, Finn C, Levine S, Darrell T, Griffiths T 2018. Recasting gradient-based meta-learning as hierarchical Bayes. arXiv:1801.08930 [cs.CV]
  28. Heeger DJ. 1992. Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex. Vis. Neurosci. 9:2181–97
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hosu V, Lin H, Sziranyi T, Saupe D. 2020. KonIQ-10k: an ecologically valid database for deep learning of blind image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 29:4041–56
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hou W, Gao X, Tao D, Li X. 2014. Blind image quality assessment via deep learning. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 26:61275–86
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Johnson J, Alahi A, Li F. 2016. Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution. Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision, Amsterdam694–711 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kang L, Ye P, Li Y, Doermann D. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for no-reference image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus, OH1733–40 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kang L, Ye P, Li Y, Doermann D. 2015. Simultaneous estimation of image quality and distortion via multi-task convolutional neural networks. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Quebec City, QC, Can.2791–95 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim HG, Lim HT, Ro YM. 2019. Deep virtual reality image quality assessment with human perception guider for omnidirectional image. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 30:4917–28
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim J, Lee S. 2016. Fully deep blind image quality predictor. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 11:1206–20
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim J, Nguyen AD, Lee S. 2018. Deep CNN-based blind image quality predictor. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 30:111–24
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim J, Zeng H, Ghadiyaram D, Lee S, Zhang L, Bovik AC. 2017. Deep convolutional neural models for picture-quality prediction: challenges and solutions to data-driven image quality assessment. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 34:6130–41
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kingma DP, Dhariwal P. 2018. Glow: generative flow with invertible 1 x 1 convolutions. Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (NeurIPS 2018), Montreal,QC, Can.10215–24 Red Hook, NY: Curran Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kite TD, Evans BL, Bovik AC. 2000. Modeling and quality assessment of halftoning by error diffusion. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 9:5909–22
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Knill DC, Richards W. 1996. Perception as Bayesian Inference Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lai YK, Kuo CC. 2000. A Haar wavelet approach to compressed image quality measurement. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 11:117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lambooij M, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I, IJsselsteijn W. 2009. Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J. Imaging Sci. Tech. 53:330201
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lambooij M, IJsselsteijn W, Bouwhuis DG, Heynderickx I. 2011. Evaluation of stereoscopic images: beyond 2D quality. IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 57:2432–44
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Laparra V, Ballé J, Berardino A, Simoncelli EP. 2016. Perceptual image quality assessment using a normalized Laplacian pyramid. In Proceedings of the IS&T International Symposium on Electronic Imaging: Conference on Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, Feb. 14–18, San Francisco ch. 16. Bellingham, WA: SPIE
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Larson EC, Chandler DM. 2010. Most apparent distortion: full-reference image quality assessment and the role of strategy. J. Electron. Imaging 19:1011006
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lasmar NE, Stitou Y, Berthoumieu Y. 2009. Multiscale skewed heavy tailed model for texture analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Cairo, Egypt2281–84 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lavoué G, Mantiuk R 2015. Quality assessment in computer graphics. Visual Signal Quality Assessment: Quality of Experience C Deng, L Ma, W Lin, KN Ngan 243–86 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lin KY, Wang G. 2018. Hallucinated-IQA: no-reference image quality assessment via adversarial learning. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT732–41 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Liu H, Heynderickx I. 2011. Visual attention in objective image quality assessment: based on eye-tracking data. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 21:7971–82
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Liu TJ, Lin W, Kuo CC. 2012. Image quality assessment using multi-method fusion. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 22:51793–807
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lubin J. 1993. The use of psychophysical data and models in the analysis of display system performance. Digital Images and Human Vision AB Watson 163–78 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lubin J 1995. A visual discrimination model for imaging system design and evaluation. Vision Models for Target Detection and Recognition E Peli 245–83 Singapore: World Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ma K, Duanmu Z, Wang Z, Wu Q, Liu W et al. 2020. Group maximum differentiation competition: model comparison with few samples. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intel. 42:4851–64
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ma K, Duanmu Z, Wu Q, Wang Z, Yong H et al. 2016. Waterloo exploration database: new challenges for image quality assessment models. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 26:21004–16
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ma K, Liu W, Liu T, Wang Z, Tao D 2017. dipIQ: blind image quality assessment by learning-to-rank discriminable image pairs. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 26:83951–64
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Ma K, Liu W, Zhang K, Duanmu Z, Wang Z, Zuo W 2018. End-to-end blind image quality assessment using deep neural networks. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 27:31202–13
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Ma K, Liu X, Fang Y, Simoncelli EP. 2019. Blind image quality assessment by learning from multiple annotators. Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Image Processing, Taipei, Taiwan2344–48 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Ma K, Zeng K, Wang Z. 2015a. Perceptual quality assessment for multi-exposure image fusion. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 24:113345–56
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Ma K, Zhao T, Zeng K, Wang Z. 2015b. Objective quality assessment for color-to-gray image conversion. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 24:124673–85
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Mannos J, Sakrison D. 1974. The effects of a visual fidelity criterion of the encoding of images. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 20:4525–36
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Marziliano P, Dufaux F, Winkler S, Ebrahimi T. 2004. Perceptual blur and ringing metrics: application to JPEG2000. Signal Process. Image Commun. 19:2163–72
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Min X, Ma K, Gu K, Zhai G, Wang Z, Lin W 2017. Unified blind quality assessment of compressed natural, graphic, and screen content images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 26:115462–74
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Mittal A, Moorthy AK, Bovik AC. 2012a. No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21:124695–708
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Mittal A, Soundararajan R, Bovik AC. 2012b. Making a “completely blind” image quality analyzer. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 20:3209–12
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Moorthy AK, Bovik AC. 2011. Blind image quality assessment: from natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 20:123350–64
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Nasiri RM, Wang Z. 2017. Perceptual aliasing factors and the impact of frame rate on video quality. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Beijing, China3475–79 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Nielsen KR, Watson AB, Ahumada AJ. 1985. Application of a computable model of human spatial vision to phase discrimination. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 2:91600–6
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Olshausen BA, Field DJ. 1997. Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: a strategy employed by V1?. Vis. Res. 37:233311–25
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Pan D, Shi P, Hou M, Ying Z, Fu S, Zhang Y. 2018. Blind predicting similar quality map for image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT6373–82 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Parraga CA, Troscianko T, Tolhurst DJ. 2000. The human visual system is optimised for processing the spatial information in natural visual images. Curr. Biol. 10:135–38
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Ponomarenko N, Jin L, Ieremeiev O, Lukin V, Egiazarian K et al. 2015. Image database TID2013: peculiarities, results and perspectives. Signal Process. . Image Commun 30:57–77
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Ponomarenko N, Lukin V, Zelensky A, Egiazarian K, Carli M, Battisti F 2009. TID2008: a database for evaluation of full-reference visual quality assessment metrics. Adv. Modern Radioelectron. 10:430–45
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Prince SJ. 2012. Computer Vision: Models, Learning, and Inference Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Rehman A, Wang Z. 2012. Reduced-reference image quality assessment by structural similarity estimation. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21:83378–89
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Rehman A, Zeng K, Wang Z. 2015. Display device-adapted video quality-of-experience assessment. Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 9394 Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XX ch. 6 Bellingham, WA: SPIE
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Richter T. 2011. SSIM as global quality metric: a differential geometry view. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Multimedia Experience, Mechelen, Belgium189–94 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Russakovsky O, Deng J, Su H, Krause J, Satheesh S et al. 2015. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 115:3211–52
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Saad MA, Bovik AC, Charrier C. 2012. Blind image quality assessment: a natural scene statistics approach in the DCT domain. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21:83339–52
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Safranek RJ, Johnston JD. 1989. A perceptually tuned sub-band image coder with image dependent quantization and post-quantization data compression. Proceedings of the 1989 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Glasgow, UK1945–48 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sampat MP, Wang Z, Gupta S, Bovik AC, Markey MK. 2009. Complex wavelet structural similarity: a new image similarity index. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 18:112385–401
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sheikh HR, Bovik AC. 2006. Image information and visual quality. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 15:2430–44
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Sheikh HR, Bovik AC, De Veciana G. 2005. An information fidelity criterion for image quality assessment using natural scene statistics. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 14:122117–28
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Sheikh HR, Sabir MF, Bovik AC. 2006. A statistical evaluation of recent full reference image quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 15:113440–51
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Silverstein DA, Farrell JE. 1996. The relationship between image fidelity and image quality. Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Lausanne, Switzerland881–84 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Simoncelli EP, Olshausen BA. 2001. Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24:1193–216
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Soundararajan R, Bovik AC. 2011. RRED indices: reduced reference entropic differencing for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21:2517–26
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Stocker AA, Simoncelli EP. 2006. Sensory adaptation within a Bayesian framework for perception. Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18 (NIPS 2005), Vancouver, BC1289–96 Red Hook, NY: Curran Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Su H, Duanmu Z, Liu W, Liu Q, Wang Z. 2019. Perceptual quality assessment of 3D point clouds. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Taipei, Taiwan3182–86 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Talebi H, Milanfar P. 2018. NIMA: neural image assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 27:83998–4011
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Taylor CC, Pizlo Z, Allebach JP, Bouman CA. 1997. Image quality assessment with a Gabor pyramid model of the human visual system. Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 3016 Human Vision and Electronic Imaging II58–69 Bellingham, WA: SPIE
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Teo PC, Heeger DJ. 1994. Perceptual image distortion. Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Austin, TX982–86 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  92. VQEG 2000. Final report from the Video Quality Experts Group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment Rep. VQEG N.p. https://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/vqeg/projects/frtv-phase-i/frtv-phase-i.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wainwright MJ, Simoncelli EP. 2000. Scale mixtures of Gaussians and the statistics of natural images. NIPS '99: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Denver, CO855–61 Red Hook, NY: Curran Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Wang J, Wang S, Ma K, Wang Z 2016. Perceptual depth quality in distorted stereoscopic images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 26:31202–15
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Wang Z. 2016. Objective image quality assessment: facing the real-world challenges. Electron. Imag. 2016:131–6
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Wang Z, Athar S, Wang Z. 2019. Blind quality assessment of multiply distorted images using deep neural networks. ICIAR 2019: Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Analysis and Recognition, Waterloo, ON89–101 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Wang Z, Bovik AC. 2002. A universal image quality index. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 9:381–84
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Wang Z, Bovik AC. 2006. Modern Image Quality Assessment Synth. Lect. Image Video Multimed. Process Williston, VT: Morgan & Claypool
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Wang Z, Bovik AC. 2009. Mean squared error: love it or leave it? A new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26:198–117
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Wang Z, Bovik AC. 2011. Reduced- and no-reference image quality assessment: the natural scene statistic model approach. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 28:629–40
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wang Z, Bovik AC, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP. 2004. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13:4600–12
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Wang Z, Li Q 2010. Information content weighting for perceptual image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 20:51185–98
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Wang Z, Shang X. 2006. Spatial pooling strategies for perceptual image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Atlanta, GA2945–48 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Wang Z, Sheikh HR, Bovik AC. 2002. No-reference perceptual quality assessment of JPEG compressed images. Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Rochester, NY477–80 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Wang Z, Simoncelli EP. 2004a. Local phase coherence and the perception of blur. Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 16 (NIPS 2003), Vancouver, BC1435–42 Red Hook, NY: Curran Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Wang Z, Simoncelli EP. 2004b. Stimulus synthesis for efficient evaluation and refinement of perceptual image quality metrics. Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 5292 Human Vision and Electronic Imaging IX99–108 Bellingham, WA: SPIE
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Wang Z, Simoncelli EP. 2005a. An adaptive linear system framework for image distortion analysis. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Genova, Italy1160–63 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Wang Z, Simoncelli EP. 2005b. Reduced-reference image quality assessment using a wavelet-domain natural image statistic model. Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 5666 Human Vision and Electronic Imaging X149–59 Bellingham, WA: SPIE
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Wang Z, Simoncelli EP. 2008. Maximum differentiation (MAD) competition: a methodology for comparing computational models of perceptual quantities. J. Vis. 8:128
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Wang Z, Simoncelli EP, Bovik AC. 2003. Multiscale structural similarity for image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2003 Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, Pacific Grove, CA1398–402 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Wang Z, Wu G, Sheikh HR, Simoncelli EP, Yang EH, Bovik AC. 2006. Quality-aware images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 15:61680–89
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Watson AB. 1987. The cortex transform: rapid computation of simulated neural images. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 39:3311–27
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Watson AB. 1993. DCTune: a technique for visual optimization of DCT quantization matrices for individual images. Soc. Inf. Display Dig. Tech. Pap XXIV:946–49
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Watson AB, Ahumada AJ. 1989. A hexagonal orthogonal-oriented pyramid as a model of image representation in visual cortex. IEEE. Trans. Biomed. Eng. 36:197–106
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Watson AB, Yang GY, Solomon JA. 1997. Visibility of wavelet quantization noise. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 6:81164–75
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Winkler S. 2012. Analysis of public image and video databases for quality assessment. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 6:6616–25
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Wu Q, Li H, Meng F, Ngan KN, Luo B et al. 2015a. Blind image quality assessment based on multichannel feature fusion and label transfer. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. Video Technol. 26:3425–40
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wu Q, Wang Z, Li H. 2015b. A highly efficient method for blind image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Quebec City, QC339–43 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Xu J, Ye P, Li Q, Du H, Liu Y, Doermann D. 2016. Blind image quality assessment based on high order statistics aggregation. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 25:94444–57
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Xu M, Li C, Zhang S, Le Callet P 2020. State-of-the-art in 360 video/image processing: perception, assessment and compression. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 14:15–26
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Xue W, Zhang L, Mou X. 2013a. Learning without human scores for blind image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Portland, OR995–1002 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Xue W, Zhang L, Mou X, Bovik AC. 2013b. Gradient magnitude similarity deviation: a highly efficient perceptual image quality index. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 23:2684–95
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Ye P, Kumar J, Doermann D. 2014. Beyond human opinion scores: blind image quality assessment based on synthetic scores. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Columbus, OH4241–48 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Ye P, Kumar J, Kang L, Doermann D. 2012. Unsupervised feature learning framework for no-reference image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Providence, RI1098–105 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Yeganeh H, Rostami M, Wang Z. 2015. Objective quality assessment of interpolated natural images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 24:114651–63
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Yeganeh H, Wang Z. 2013. Objective quality assessment of tone-mapped images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 22:2657–67
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Zeng K, Zhao T, Rehman A, Wang Z. 2014. Characterizing perceptual artifacts in compressed video streams. Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol. 9014 Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XIX ch. 90140Q Bellingham, WA: SPIE
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Zhai G, Min X 2020. Perceptual image quality assessment: a survey. Sci. China Info. Sci. 63:11211301
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Zhang L, Zhang L, Bovik AC. 2015. A feature-enriched completely blind image quality evaluator. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 24:82579–91
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Zhang L, Zhang L, Mou X, Zhang D. 2011. FSIM: a feature similarity index for image quality assessment. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 20:82378–86
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Zhang P, Zhou W, Wu L, Li H. 2015. SOM: semantic obviousness metric for image quality assessment. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Boston, MA2394–402 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Zhang R, Isola P, Efros AA, Shechtman E, Wang O. 2018. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Salt Lake City, UT586–95 Piscataway, NJ: IEEE
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Zhang W, Borji A, Wang Z, Le Callet P, Liu H 2016. The application of visual saliency models in objective image quality assessment: a statistical evaluation. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 27:61266–78
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Zhang W, Liu H. 2017. Learning picture quality from visual distraction: psychophysical studies and computational models. Neurocomputing 247:183–91
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Zhang X, Feng X, Wang W, Xue W 2013. Edge strength similarity for image quality assessment. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 20:4319–22
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Zhang X, Wandell BA. 1997. A spatial extension of CIELAB for digital color-image reproduction. J. Soc. Inform. Display 5:161–63
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Zujovic J, Pappas TN, Neuhoff DL. 2013. Structural texture similarity metrics for image analysis and retrieval. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 22:72545–58
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100419-120301
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-vision-100419-120301
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error