ArticleScientific data2026
RAID-Dataset: human responses to affine image distortions and Gaussian noise.
Article in Scientific data, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- RAID-Dataset: human responses to affine image distortions and Gaussian noise.Scientific data · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Image quality datasets are used to train and evaluate predictive models of subjective human perception. However, most existing datasets focus on distortions commonly found in digital media and not in natural conditions. Affine transformations are particularly relevant for study, as they are among the most commonly encountered by human observers in everyday life. This Data Descriptor presents a set of human responses to suprathreshold affine image transformations (rotation, translation, scaling) and Gaussian noise as convenient reference to compare with existing image quality datasets. The responses were measured using well-established psychophysics: the Maximum Likelihood Difference Scaling (MLDS). The set contains responses to 864 distorted images. The experiments involved 210 observers and over 40,000 image quadruple comparisons. The dataset is validated by two facts: (a) the responses reproduce classical absolute detection thresholds of the affine and Gaussian distortions, and (b) the responses to Gaussian distortion are correlated to the Mean Opinion Score (MOS) of conventional image quality databases for that distortion. Moreover, the classical Piéron's law applies to the reaction times of the dataset, and Group-MAD adversarial stimuli reveal that MLDS perceptual scales are more accurate than the conventional MOS.
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.