Quantitative Assessment of Perceived Visibility Enhancement with Image Processing for Single Face Images: A Preliminary Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop a method to quantitatively assess the visibility enhancement of single face images gained with digital filters for people with maculopathy. To apply this method to obtaining preliminary results of visibility enhancement with subjectively preferred filters for people with maculopathy. METHODS: Six subjects with normal vision and two with maculopathy were required to recognize seven facial expressions of single face images with different display durations of 2 seconds, 1 second, and 0.73 second. As a result, four facial expressions (anger, disgust, fear, and sadness) and a display duration of 0.73 second were chosen to measure single face image visibility enhancement with subjectively preferred digital filters. Finally, nine subjects with maculopathy viewed 30 images with four facial expressions that were either unfiltered or filtered with subjectively preferred digital filters. Each subject was required to identify the facial expression in a four-alternative, forced-choice paradigm. The errors with original and filtered images were calculated. RESULTS: The method with four facial expressions and display duration of 0.73 second prevented a ceiling effect. The nine subjects with maculopathy made significantly fewer errors with the filtered images than with the original ones images (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The developed method was effective in objective (quantitative) measurement of the enhancement in image visibility with digital filtering for people with maculopathy. There is a measurable improvement in facial expression recognition with subjectively preferred filters. The facial expression recognition task developed and validated in the present study is recommended as a method to be used in future studies of enhancement of face images.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".