Fig 1.
SDAM network structure.
Fig 2.
Structure of the channel attention module.
Fig 3.
Structure of the spatial attention module.
Table 1.
SDAM network parameters.
Fig 4.
Partial examples of the dataset.
Fig 5.
A qualitative comparison of SDAM with five state-of-the-art fusion methods on six typical pairs of infrared and visible images in the TNO dataset.
From top to bottom, they are: (a) the infrared image, (b) the visible image, (c) the fusion results of GANMcC, (d) the fusion results of IFCNN, (e) fusion results of SEDRFuse.
Fig 6.
Qualitative comparison of SDAM and 5 state-of-the-art fusion methods on 6 typical pairs of infrared and visible images.
From top to bottom: (f) fusion results of RFN-Nest, (g) fusion results of STDFusion, (h) fusion results of MrFDDGAN, (i) fusion results of SOSMaskFuse, (j) fusion results of SDAM.
Table 2.
Quantitative results on the TNO dataset.
The maximum value is highlighted in red and bold.
Fig 7.
Qualitative comparison of SDAM with 5 state-of-the-art fusion methods on 6 typical infrared and visible image pairs in the M3FD dataset.
From top to bottom: (a) the infrared image, (b) the visible image, (c) the fusion results of GANMcC, (d) the fusion results of IFCNN, (e) fusion results of SEDRFuse.
Fig 8.
Qualitative comparison of SDAM and 5 state-of-the-art fusion methods on 6 typical pairs of infrared and visible images.
From top to bottom: (f) fusion results of RFN-Nest, (g) fusion results of STDFusion, (h) fusion results of MrFDDGAN, (i) fusion results of SOSMaskFuse, (j) fusion results of SDAM.
Table 3.
Quantitative results on the M3FD dataset.
The maximum value is highlighted in red and bold.
Fig 9.
Impact of parameter variations on image fusion performance.
Fig 10.
Representative results of ablation experiments under different parameters.
(a) Infrared image, (b) visible image, (c) α = 1, β = 10, γ = 10, (d) α = 10, β = 10, γ = 1, (e) α = 10, β = 1, γ = 10, (f) α = 1, β = 10, γ = 1, (g) α = 10, β = 1, γ = 1, (h) α = 1, β = 1, γ = 10.
Fig 11.
Representative results of ablation experiment with and without channel attention.
(a) Infrared image, (b) Visible image, (c) Without channel attention, (d) With channel attention.
Table 4.
Quantitative evaluation metrics with and without channel attention.
Maximum values are highlighted in bold and red.
Fig 12.
Representative results of spatial attention ablation experiment.
(a) Infrared image, (b) Visible image, (c) Without spatial attention, (d) With spatial attention.
Table 5.
Quantitative evaluation metrics under conditions with and without spatial attention.
The maximum value is highlighted in bold red.