Advertisement

Sensing and Imaging

, 18:11 | Cite as

Free Energy Adjusted Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (FEA-PSNR) for Image Quality Assessment

  • Ning Liu
  • Guangtao ZhaiEmail author
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Image Quality Assessment for Sensing

Abstract

Peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR), the de facto universal image quality metric has been widely criticized as having poor correlation with human subjective quality ratings. In this paper, it will be illustrated that the low performance of PSNR as an image quality metric is partially due to its inability of differentiating image contents. And it is revealed that the deviation between subjective score and PSNR for each type of distortions can be systematically captured by perceptual complexity of the target image. The free energy modelling technique is then introduced to simulate the human cognitive process and measure perceptual complexity of an image. Then it is shown that performance of PSNR can be effectively improved using a linear score mapping process considering image free energy and distortion type. The proposed free energy adjusted peak signal to noise ratio (FEA-PSNR) does not change computational steps the of ordinary PSNR and therefore it inherits the merits of being simple, derivable and physically meaningful. So FEA-PSNR can be easily integrated into existing PSNR based image processing systems to achieve more visually plausible results. And the proposed analysis approach can be extended to other types of image quality metrics for enhanced performance.

Keywords

Image quality assessment Peak signal to noise ration Free energy principle Linear mapping 

References

  1. 1.
    Wang, Z., & Bovik, A. (2009). Mean squared error: Love it or leave it? A new look at signal fidelity measures. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 26(1), 98–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Girod, B. (1991). Psychovisual aspects of image processing: What’s wrong with mean squared error? In Proceedings of the seventh workshop on multidimensional signal processing (p. P.2).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhai, G. (2015). Recent advances in image quality assessment. In C. Deng, L. Ma, W. Lin, & K. N. Ngan, (Eds.), Visual signal quality assessment (pp. 73–97). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu, J., Lin, W., Shi, G., & Liu, A. (2013). Perceptual quality metric with internal generative mechanism. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 22(1), 43–54.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu, J., Lin, W., Shi, G., Zhang, Y., Dong, W., & Chen, Z. (2015). Visual orientation selectivity based structure description. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(11), 4602–4613.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang, Z., & Li, Q. (2011). Information content weighting for perceptual image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20(5), 1185–1198.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gu, K., Wang, S., Zhai, G., Lin, W., Yang, X., & Zhang, W. (2016). Analysis of distortion distribution for pooling in image quality prediction. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 62(2), 446–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gu, K., Zhai, G., Yang, X., & Zhang, W. (2015). Using free energy principle for blind image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 17(1), 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gu, K., Zhai, G., Lin, W., Yang, X., & Zhang, W. (2015). No-reference image sharpness assessment in autoregressive parameter space. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(10), 3218–3231.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gu, K., Wang, S., Yang, H., Lin, W., Zhai, G., Yang, X., et al. (2016). Saliency-guided quality assessment of screen content images. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 18(6), 1098–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gu, K., Wang, S., Zhai, G., Ma, S., Yang, X., Lin, W., et al. (2016). Blind quality assessment of tone-mapped images via analysis of information, naturalness, and structure. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 18(3), 432–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linsker, R. (1990). Perceptual neural organisation: Some approaches based on network models and information theory. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhai, G., Wu, X., Yang, X., Lin, W., & Zhang, W. (2012). A psychovisual quality metric in free energy principle. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21(1), 41–52.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheikh, H., Wang, Z., Cormack, L., & Bovik, A. Live image quality assessment database release 2. [Online]. Available http://live.ece.utexas.edu/research/quality.
  16. 16.
    Moorthy, A. K., & Bovik, A. C. (2010). A two-step framework for constructing blind image quality indices. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 17(5), 513–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gu, K., Zhai, G., Yang, X., & Zhang, W. (2014). Hybrid no-reference quality metric for singly and multiply distorted images. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, 60(3), 555–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    VQEG. (2003). VQEG final report of FR-TV phase II validation test. [Online]. Available www.vqeg.org.
  19. 19.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A., Sheikh, H., & Simoncelli, E. (2004). Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4), 600–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sheikh, H. R., & Bovik, A. C. (2006). Image information and visual quality. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15(2), 430–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Image Communication and Network EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations