Age-specific perceptual image quality assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the development of image-based applications, assessing the quality of images has become increasingly important. Although our perception of image quality changes as we age, most existing image quality assessment (IQA) metrics make simplifying assumptions about the age of observers, thus limiting their use for age-specific applications. In this work, we propose a personalized IQA metric to assess the perceived image quality of observers from different age groups. Firstly, we apply an age simulation algorithm to compute how an observer with a particular age would perceive a given image. More specifically, we process the input image according to an age-specific contrast sensitivity function (CSF), which predicts the reduction of contrast visibility associated with the aging eye. We combine age simulation with existing IQA metrics to calculate the age-specific perceived image quality score. To validate the effectiveness of our combined model, we conducted a psychophysical experiment in a controlled laboratory environment with young (18-31 y.o.), middle-aged (32-52 y.o.), and older (53+ y.o.) adults, measuring their image quality preferences for 84 test images. Our analysis shows that the predictions by our age-specific IQA metric are well correlated with the collected subjective IQA results from our psychophysical experiment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".