Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 425–445 | Cite as

Foveated mean squared error—a novel video quality metric

  • Snježana Rimac-DrljeEmail author
  • Mario Vranješ
  • Drago Žagar


Efficiency of a video coding process, as well as accuracy of an objective video quality evaluation can be significantly improved by introduction of the human visual system (HVS) characteristics. In this paper we analyze one of these characteristics; namely, visual acuity reduction due to the foveated vision and object movements in a video sequence. We propose a new video quality metric called Foveated Mean Squared Error (FMSE) that takes into account a variable resolution of the HVS across the visual field. The highest visual acuity is at the point of fixation that falls into fovea, an area at retina with the highest density of photoreceptors. Visual acuity decreases rapidly for image regions which are further with respect to the fixation point. FMSE also utilizes the effect of additional spatial acuity reduction due to motion in a video sequence. The quality measures calculated by FMSE have shown a high correlation with experimental results obtained by subjective video quality assessment.


Foveated vision Retinal image velocity Spatio-temporal activity Subjective quality assessment Video quality metric 



This work is supported by the Croatian Ministry of Education, Science and Sports through the projects 165-0361630-1636 and 165-0362027-1479.


  1. 1.
    Albanese M, Chianese A, Moscato V, Sansone L (2004) A formal model for video shot segmentation and its application via animate vision. Multimed Tool Appl 24:253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnow TL, Geisler WS (1996) Visual detection following retinal damage: Prediction of an inhomogeneus retino-cortical model. In: Proc. SPIE 2674: 119-130Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banks MS, Sekuler AB, Anderson SJ (1991) Peripheral spatial vision: limits imposed by optics, photoreceptors, and receptor pooling. J Optical Soc A 8:1775–1787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barten PGJ (1999) Contrast sensitivity of the human eye and its effects on image quality. SPIE Optical Engineering, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boccignone G, Chianese A, Moscato V, Picariello A (2005) Foveated shot detection for video segmentation. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 15(3):365–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boccignone G, Marcelli A, Napoletano P, Di Fiore G, Iacovoni G, Morsa S (2008) Bayesian integration of face and low-level cues for foveated video coding. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 18(12):1727–1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daly S (1993) The visible difference predictor: an algorithm for the assesment of image fidelity. In: Watson AB (ed) Digital images and human vision. The MIT, Cambridge, pp 179–206Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Daly S (1998) Engineering observation from spatio velocity and spatiotemporal visual models. In: Proc. SPIE 3299: 180-191Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eckert MP, Buchsbaum G (1993) The significance of eye movements and image acceleration for coding television image sequences. In: Watson AB (ed) Digital images and human vision. The MIT, Cambridge, pp 89–98Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ftp://vqeg.its.bldrdoc.govGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Geisler WS, Perry JS (1998) A real time foveated multiresolution system for low-bandwidth video communication. In: Proc. SPIE 3299: 294-305Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ho CC, Wu JL, Cheng WH (2005) A practical foveation-based rate-shaping mechanism for MPEG videos. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 15(11):1365–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Itti L (2004) Automatic foveation for video compression using a neurobiological model of visual attention. IEEE Trans Image Process 13(10):1304–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee S, Bovik AC (2003) Fast algorithms for foveated video processing. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 13(2):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee H, Lee S (2006) Visual entropy gain for wavelet image coding. IEEE Signal Process Lett 13(9):553–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee S, Pattchis MS, Bovik AC (2002) Foveated video quality assessment. IEEE Trans Multimedia 4(1):129–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linde I, Rajashekar U, Novik AC, Cormack LK (2008) DOVES: a database of visual eye movements. Spat Vis 22(2):161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lisberg SG, Evinger C, Johnson GW, Fuchs AF (1981) Relation between eye acceleration and retinal image velocity during foveal pursuit in man and monkey. J Neurophysiol 46:229–249Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masry M, Hemami SS, Sermadevi Y (2006) A scalable wavelet-based video distortion metric and applications. IEEE Trans Circuits Syst Video Technol 16:260–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meur OL, Callet PL, Barba D (2007) Predicting visual fixations on video based on low level visual features. Vis Res 47:2483–2498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MSU Graphics&Media Lab, Video Group, MSU codecs,
  23. 23.
    Privitera CM, Stark LW (2000) Algorithms for defining visual regions-of interest: comparison with eye fixation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 22(9):970–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rajashekar U, Linde I, Bovik AC, Cormack LK (2008) GAFFE: A gaze-attentive fixation finding engine. IEEE Trans Image Process 17(4):564–573CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rec. ITU-T P.910 (1999) Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applicationsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rec. ITU-R BT.500-11 (2002) Methodology for the subjective assessment of the quality of television picturesGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rimac-Drlje S, Žagar D, Martinović G (2009) Spatial masking and perceived video quality in multimedia applications. In: Proc. IWSSIP 2009, Chalkida, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Robson JG, Graham N (1981) Probability summation and regional variation in contrast sensitivity across the visual field. Vis Res 21:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stelmach LB, Pam WJ (1994) Processing image sequences based on eye movements. In: Proc. SPIE 2179: 90-98Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vranješ M, Rimac-Drlje S, Nemčić O (2009) Influence of Foveated Vision on Video Quality Perception, In: Proc. Elmar 2009, Zadar, pp 29-32Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC (2001) Embedded foveation image coding. IEEE Trans Image Process 10(10):1397–1410zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang Z, Bovik AC, Lu L, Kouloheris J (2001) Foveated wavelet image quality index. In: Proc. SPIE 4472: 42-52Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang Z, Lu L, Bovik AC (2004) Video quality assessment based on structural distortion measurement. Signal Process Image Comm 19:121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Watson AB, Hu J, McGowan JF III (2001) DVQ: A digital video quality metric based on human vision. J Electronic Imaging 10(1):20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Winkler S (2005) Digital video quality: Vision models and metrics. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wu HR, Rao KR (2006) Digital video image quality and perceptual coding. CRC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    Xiao F. DCT-based video quality evaluation.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Snježana Rimac-Drlje
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mario Vranješ
    • 1
  • Drago Žagar
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringUniversity J.J. Strossmayer in OsijekOsijekCroatia

Personalised recommendations