Thi s report describes the structure, performance, and some applications of the Sarnoff Visual Discrimination Model. The model has been designed for physiological plausibility as well as speed and simpljcity of operation, and has been shown to be highly accurate in predicting performance in a large number of visual discrimination and image quality rating tasks. The model can be used to assess the visual effects of variations in imaging system parameters, and is thu s well-suited for applications in the design and evaluation of imaging systems and their components.

The authors investigated whether anomalous information in the periphery of a scene attracts saccades when the anomaly is not distinctive in its low-level visual properties. Subjects viewed color photographs for 8 s while their eye movements were monitored. Each subject saw 2 photographs of different scenes. One photograph was a control scene in which familiar objects appeared in their canonical form. In the other picture, objects were altered in a way that rendered them deviant without introducing any obvious changes in low-level visual saliency. In Experiment 1, these alterations involved rotating an object in an unnatural fashion (e.g., an inverted head on a portrait, a truck parked on its front end). In Experiment 2, colors were distributed over objects in a way that was either reasonable or anomalous (e.g., a green cup vs. a green hand). Subjects fixated the anomalous items earlier (both in time and in order of fixations) than the nondistorted objects, suggesting that violations of canonical form are detected peripherally and can affect the likelihood of fixating an item.

Subjective assessment methods have been used reliably for many years to evaluate video quality. They continue to provide the most reliable assessments compared to objective methods. Some issues that arise with subjective assessment include the cost of conducting the evaluations and the fact that these methods cannot easily be used to monitor video quality in real time. Furthermore, traditional, analog objective methods, while still necessary, are not sufficient to measure the quality of digitally compressed video systems. Thus, there is a need to develop new objective methods utilizing the characteristics of the human visual system. While several new objective methods have been developed, there is to date no internationally standardized method.The Video Quality Experts Group (VQEG) was formed in October 1997 to address video quality issues. The group is composed of e xperts from various backgrounds and affiliations, including participants from several internationally recognized organizations working in the field of video quality assessment. The majority of participants are active in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and VQEG combines the expertise and resources found in several ITU Study Groups to work towards a common goal. The first task undertaken by VQEG was to provide a validation of objective video quality measurement methods leading to Recommendations in both the Telecommunications (ITU-T) and Radiocommunication (ITU-R) sectors of the ITU. To this end, VQEG designed and executed a test program to compare subjective video quality evaluations to the predictions of a number of proposed objective measurement methods for video quality in the bit rate range of 768 kb/s to 50 Mb/s. The results of this test show that there is no objective measurement system that is currently able to replace subjective testing. Depending on the metric used for evaluation, the performance of eight or nine models was found to be statistically equivalent, leading to the conclusion that no single model outperforms the others in all cases. The greatest achievement of this first validation effort is the unique data set assembled to help future development of objective models.

No abstract

IntroductionThis study examined acceptance by staff and patients of a therapy dog (TD) in the emergency department (ED).MethodsImmediately after TD visits to a University Hospital ED, all available ED staff, patients, and their visitors were invited to complete a survey.ResultsOf 125 “patient” and 105 staff responses, most were favorable. Ninety-three percent of patients and 95% of staff agreed that TDs should visit EDs; 87.8% of patients and 92% of staff approved of TDs for both adult and pediatric patients. Fewer than 5% of either patients or staff were afraid of the TDs. Fewer than 10% of patients and staff thought the TDs posed a sanitary risk or interfered with staff work.ConclusionBoth patients and staff approve of TDs in an ED. The benefits of animal-assisted therapy should be further explored in the ED setting.