&lt;title&gt;Identifiability: a fast way to measure identification performance&lt;/title&gt;

Hogervorst, Maarten A.; Toet, Alexander; Bijl, Piet; Miller, Brian

doi:10.1117/12.542025

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 4 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether synthetic imagery is realistic enough will also depend on the military task that is being investigated. Lab measures (such as conspicuity and identifiability) have been proposed to quickly asses the fidelity of detection and identification [25,26].…”

Section: Real Vs Synthetic Imagerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of camouflage assessment techniques

Toet

Hogervorst

2020

Target and Background Signatures VI

Self Cite

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

Section: Real Vs Synthetic Imagerymentioning

confidence: 99%