↓ Skip to main content

Modeling Human Perception of Image Quality

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Modeling Human Perception of Image Quality
Published in
Journal of Digital Imaging, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10278-018-0096-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oleg S. Pianykh, Ksenia Pospelova, Nick H. Kamboj

Abstract

Humans can determine image quality instantly and intuitively, but the mechanism of human perception of image quality is unknown. The purpose of this work was to identify the most important quantitative metrics responsible for the human perception of digital image quality. Digital images from two different datasets-CT tomography (MedSet) and scenic photographs of trees (TreeSet)-were presented in random pairs to unbiased human viewers. The observers were then asked to select the best-quality image from each image pair. The resulting human-perceived image quality (HPIQ) ranks were obtained from these pairwise comparisons with two different ranking approaches. Using various digital image quality metrics reported in the literature, we built two models to predict the observed HPIQ rankings, and to identify the most important HPIQ predictors. Evaluating the quality of our HPIQ models as the fraction of falsely predicted pairwise comparisons (inverted image pairs), we obtained 70-71% of correct HPIQ predictions for the first, and 73-76%for the second approach. Taking into account that 10-14% of inverted pairs were already present in the original rankings, limitations of the models, and only a few principal HPIQ predictors used, we find this result very satisfactory. We obtained a small set of most significant quantitative image metrics associated with the human perception of image quality. This can be used for automatic image quality ranking, machine learning, and quality-improvement algorithms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Student > Master 3 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Professor 1 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 2 13%
Engineering 2 13%
Computer Science 2 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Mathematics 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2023.
All research outputs
#6,907,668
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#247
of 1,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,115
of 343,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.