Camouflage Effectiveness Assessment Based on Fusion with Constant Color Background

Zhao, Dan; Pengye, Wagn; Zhang, Hengbo; Zongge, Dong

doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1060/1/012009

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent evaluation studies agree with these previous findings, for instance that there is no clear relation between the output of the CAMAELEON signature metric and observer ratings for camouflaged targets [32,34]. Although several new methods have been introduced since the conclusion of this study (e.g., [10,11,61,[166][167][168]204,206,207]) computational signature analysis methods still do not fully represent the range of significant visual and cognitive processes driving target acquisition performance [34]. Some promising methods that appear to reliably predict human visual detection of camouflaged targets are target-background similarity metrics like Structural Similarity (SSIM: [133]), the Universal Image Quality Index (UIQI: [11]), and the Gabor Edge Disruption Ratio (GabRat: [61]).…”

Section: Local Clutter Metricssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Recently saliency algorithms have been extended to produce spatio-temporal saliency maps for the analysis of dynamic imagery [142,155,[158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165]. Other recent methods combine saliency maps with other images features like local regularity [166], entropy [167] or linear features [168]. Only a few saliency algorithms have been validated with observer data [129,130].…”

Section: Saliency Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of camouflage assessment techniques

Toet

Hogervorst

2020

Target and Background Signatures VI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In military operations signature reduction techniques such as camouflage nets, low-emissive paints, and camouflage patterns are typically deployed to optimize the survivability of high value assets by minimizing their detectability. Various methods have been developed to assess the effectiveness of these camouflage measures. There are three main approaches to the evaluation of camouflage measures: (1) a subjective approach through observer experiments, (2) an objective computational approach through image analysis, and (3) an objective approach through physical measurements. Although subjective evaluation methods have a direct relation with the operational practice, they are often difficult to implement because of time and budget restrictions (these experiments typically require a lot of observers, repetitions and different targets and backgrounds), or simply because the associated conditions are not safe for the observers. The objective evaluation methods are typically based on the outcome of psychophysical laboratory experiments using simple artificial stimuli, presented under extremely restricted (impoverished) conditions, and in different experimental paradigms. Other objective methods are based on signal processing techniques and have no obvious counterpart in human vision. Only a few attempts have been made to validate any of these objective metrics against the performance of human observers in realistic military scenarios. As a result, there are currently no standard and internationally accepted methods and procedures to evaluate camouflage equipment and techniques, and to indicate their military effectiveness. In this review paper we present an overview of the various subjective (psychophysical) and objective (computational, image or video based) evaluation methods that are currently available and that have been used to validate camouflage effectiveness. In addition, we discuss the relative merits of field experiments versus laboratory experiments.

show abstract