| Literature DB >> 35233177 |
Rishi Sinhal1, Sachin Sharma2, Irshad Ahmad Ansari1, Varun Bajaj1.
Abstract
Digital medical images contain important information regarding patient's health and very useful for diagnosis. Even a small change in medical images (especially in the region of interest (ROI)) can mislead the doctors/practitioners for deciding further treatment. Therefore, the protection of the images against intentional/unintentional tampering, forgery, filtering, compression and other common signal processing attacks are mandatory. This manuscript presents a multipurpose medical image watermarking scheme to offer copyright/ownership protection, tamper detection/localization (for ROI (region of interest) and different segments of RONI (region of non-interest)), and self-recovery of the ROI with 100% reversibility. Initially, the recovery information of the host image's ROI is compressed using LZW (Lempel-Ziv-Welch) algorithm. Afterwards, the robust watermark is embedded into the host image using a transform domain based embedding mechanism. Further, the 256-bit hash keys are generated using SHA-256 algorithm for the ROI and eight RONI regions (i.e. RONI-1 to RONI-8) of the robust watermarked image. The compressed recovery data and hash keys are combined and then embedded into the segmented RONI region of the robust watermarked image using an LSB replacement based fragile watermarking approach. Experimental results show high imperceptibility, high robustness, perfect tamper detection, significant tamper localization, and perfect recovery of the ROI (100% reversibility). The scheme doesn't need original host or watermark information for the extraction process due to the blind nature. The relative analysis demonstrates the superiority of the proposed scheme over existing schemes.Entities:
Keywords: Blind watermarking; Medical image watermarking; Ownership verification; ROI recovery; Reversibility; Tamper localization
Year: 2022 PMID: 35233177 PMCID: PMC8874744 DOI: 10.1007/s11042-022-12082-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Multimed Tools Appl ISSN: 1380-7501 Impact factor: 2.577
Fig. 1The proposed watermark embedding process
Fig. 2The process for generating 256-bit hash key for a region (e.g. ROI or other RONI regions)
Fig. 3Benefit of RONI segmentation and partial tamper localization in ROI recovery
Fig. 4The proposed watermark extraction process
Fig. 5Host and corresponding watermarked images with imperceptibility results (PSNR, SSIM) and the robust binary watermark
Relative comparison with the schemes [3, 32]
| S. No. | Characteristics | Sinhal & Ansari [ | Badshah et al. [ | Proposed scheme | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Signal type | Image | Image | Image | |
| 2 | Scheme type | Robust | Fragile | Robust + Fragile | |
| 3 | Multipurpose nature | No | No | Yes | |
| 4 | PSNR (watermarked) | ~ 37 dB | ~ 51 dB | ~ 40 dB | |
| 5 | Capacity | Low (only robust watermark) | High (Only fragile watermark) | High (Robust + fragile watermark) | |
| 6 | Robustness | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 7 | Copyright/ownership verification | Yes | No | Yes | |
| 8 | Tamper detection | ROI | No | Yes | Yes |
| RONI | No | No | Yes | ||
| 9 | Region-wise Tamper localization | No | No | Yes | |
| 10 | Reversibility (for ROI) | No | Yes | Yes | |
Relative comparison with existing medical watermarking schemes
| S. No. | Characteristics | Das and Kundu [ | Eswaraiah and Reddy [ | Badshah et al. [ | Parah et al. [ | Zear et al. [ | Alshanbari [ | Proposed scheme | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Host image type | Medical | Medical | Medical | Medical | Medical | Medical | Medical | |
| 2 | Scheme type | Fragile | Fragile | Fragile | Robust | Robust | Robust + Fragile | Robust + Fragile | |
| 3 | Embedding domain | Spatial | Spatial | Spatial | Transform | Transform | Transform + spatial | Transform + spatial | |
| 4 | Type of extraction | Blind | Blind | Blind | Blind | Non-blind | Non-blind | Blind | |
| 5 | PSNR (watermarked) | ~ 44 dB | ~ 50 dB | ~ 51 dB | ~ 41 dB | ~ 33 dB | ~ 48 dB | ~ 40 dB | |
| 6 | Capacity | High | High | High | Low | Very high | High | High | |
| 7 | Robustness | – | – | – | High | High | Poor | High | |
| 8 | Copyright/ownership verification | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 9 | Tamper detection | ROI | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| RONI | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | ||
| 10 | Region-wise Tamper localization | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | |
| 11 | Reversibility (for ROI) | No | Yes (only in case of no attack) | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | |
-- denotes that the mentioned characteristic is not provided
Robustness analysis in terms of BER and NC for test images against different attacks
Extracted watermark information against different attacks
Robustness comparison in terms of BER with existing robust watermarking schemes
Tamper detection, region-wise localization and ROI recovery for different tampering attacks
The comparison of fragile nature of the proposed scheme with existing fragile watermarking schemes
| Fragile Schemes | Characteristics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Payload | Imperceptibility (PSNR, SSIM) | Blind nature | Tamper localization | ROI recovery | |
| Guo and Zhuang [ | Data hiding, Image authentication, Restoration | High | ~ 57 dB | No | No | Yes |
| Das and Kundu [ | Data hiding, Image authentication | High | ~ 44 dB | Yes | Yes | No |
| Eswaraiah and Reddy [ | Data hiding, Image authentication, Restoration | High | ~ 50 dB | Yes | Yes (only for ROI) | Yes (only in case of no attack) |
| Proposed scheme (only fragile nature) | Data hiding, Image authentication, Restoration | High | ~ 57 dB | Yes | Yes | Yes |