ArticlePeerJ2019
Visual complexity modelling based on image features fusion of multiple kernels.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does prior knowledge increase or decrease perceived visual complexity of texture images?Heliyon · 2023Article
- On the Quantification of Visual Texture Complexity.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Validation of an Aesthetic Assessment System for Commercial Tasks.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Outlier-Tolerant Models for Measuring Visual Complexity.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Humans' perception of visual complexity is often regarded as one of the key principles of aesthetic order, and is intimately related to the physiological, neurological and, possibly, psychological characteristics of the human mind. For these reasons, creating accurate computational models of visual complexity is a demanding task. Building upon on previous work in the field (Forsythe et al., 2011; Machado et al., 2015) we explore the use of Machine Learning techniques to create computational models of visual complexity. For that purpose, we use a dataset composed of 800 visual stimuli divided into five categories, describing each stimulus by 329 features based on edge detection, compression error and Zipf's law. In an initial stage, a comparative analysis of representative state-of-the-art Machine Learning approaches is performed. Subsequently, we conduct an exhaustive outlier analysis. We analyze the impact of removing the extreme outliers, concluding that Feature Selection Multiple Kernel Learning obtains the best results, yielding an average correlation to humans' perception of complexity of 0.71 with only twenty-two features. These results outperform the current state-of-the-art, showing the potential of this technique for regression.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.