2022
DOI: 10.18287/2412-6179-co-911
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

wEscore: quality assessment method of multichannel image visualization with regard to angular resolution

Abstract: This work considers the problem of quality assessment of multichannel image visualization methods. One approach to such an assessment, the Escore quality measure, is studied. This measure, initially proposed for decolorization methods evaluation, can be generalized for the assessment of hyperspectral image visualization methods. It is shown that Escore does not account for the loss of local contrast at the supra-pixel scale. The sensitivity to the latter in humans depends on the observation conditions, so we p… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 32 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Note that in our procedure we deliberately did not use Kendall or Spearman rank correlation, which is often employed to compare ranked lists [18,19]. This is because our procedure did not simply fix the same or opposite choice of the winner and the loser in the pair, but explicitly used the fact that in some pairs people were absolutely confident in the winner (and the metric that agreed with them received an increment of 1, and the one that disagreed received 0), and in some other pairs they gave a result close to a draw, and on such pairs no metrics could get a significant advantage over each other, which could happen when using the Kendall/Spearman rank correlation.…”
Section: Image Quality Metrics Vs Human Study Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that in our procedure we deliberately did not use Kendall or Spearman rank correlation, which is often employed to compare ranked lists [18,19]. This is because our procedure did not simply fix the same or opposite choice of the winner and the loser in the pair, but explicitly used the fact that in some pairs people were absolutely confident in the winner (and the metric that agreed with them received an increment of 1, and the one that disagreed received 0), and in some other pairs they gave a result close to a draw, and on such pairs no metrics could get a significant advantage over each other, which could happen when using the Kendall/Spearman rank correlation.…”
Section: Image Quality Metrics Vs Human Study Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%