Validating a Quality Perception Model for Image Compression: The Subjective Evaluation of the Cogisen’s Image Compression Plug-in

  • Maria Laura MeleEmail author
  • Damon Millar
  • Christiaan Erik Rijnders
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9731)


User experience has a fundamental role in determining the effectiveness of image compression methods. This work presents the subjective evaluation of a new compression plug-in for current compression formats developed by Cogisen. The quality of image compression methods is often evaluated by objective metrics based on subjective quality datasets, rather than by using subjective quality evaluation tests. Cogisen’s compression method follows an adaptive compression process that evaluates the saliency of any image and calculates the level of compression beyond which viewers shall be aware of image quality degradation. The Single Stimulus Continuous Quality Scale method was used to conduct the subjective quality evaluation of image compression. Pictures compressed by the Facebook Mobile lossy JPEG compression and by the Cogisen plug-in integrated in the Facebook Mobile compression settings were used. The results of the user quality evaluation of pictures show about a 45 % compression improvement, with no loss in perceived image quality, for pictures compressed by the Cogisen plug-in compared to jpeg pictures as compressed by Facebook Mobile.


Image compression methods Image quality assessment Subjective evaluation methods 


  1. 1.
    Mohammadi, P., Ebrahimi-Moghadam, A., Shirani, S.: Subjective and objective quality assessment of image: a survey. (2014). arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.7799
  2. 2.
    Joshi, M.A., Raval, M.S., Dandawate, Y.H., Joshi, K.R., Metkar, S.P.: Image and Video Compression: Fundamentals, Techniques, and Applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borsci, S., Kurosu, M., Federici, S., Mele, M.L.: Computer Systems Experiences of Users with and without Disabilities: An Evaluation Guide for Professionals. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borsci, S., Kurosu, M., Federici, S., Mele, M.L.: Systemic User Experience. In: Federici, S., Scherer, M.J. (eds.) Assistive Technology Assessment Handbook, pp. 337–359. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winkler, S.: Analysis of public image and video databases for quality assessment. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Sig. Process. 6(6), 616–625 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheikh, H.R., Sabir, M.F., Bovik, A.C.: A statistical evaluation of recent full reference quality assessment algorithms. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 15(11), 3440–3451 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Recommendation, I. T. U. R. B. T.: 500-11: Methodology for the Subjective Assessment of the Quality of Television Pictures, Recommendation ITU-R BT, 500-11. ITU Telecom, Standardization Sector of ITU (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu, Xinwei, Pedersen, Marius, Hardeberg, Jon Yngve: CID: IQ – a new image quality database. In: Elmoataz, Abderrahim, Lezoray, Olivier, Nouboud, Fathallah, Mammass, Driss (eds.) ICISP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8509, pp. 193–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Laura Mele
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Damon Millar
    • 3
  • Christiaan Erik Rijnders
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Social and Human Sciences and EducationUniversity of PerugiaPerugiaItaly
  2. 2.ECONA, Interuniversity Centre for Research on Cognitive Processing in Natural and Artificial Systems, Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  3. 3.COGISEN Engineering CompanyRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations