You are on page 1of 15


Optimum Retrieval of Watermark from Wavelet Significant Pixels
Jayalakshmi M*, S. N. Merchant, U. B. Desai SPANN Lab, Electrical Engineering Department Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-76, India email: (jlakshmi*,merchant,ubdesai)

Abstract Watermark retrieval in wavelet domain has been proved to be more robust from significant pixels than high absolute pixels when a single copy of the watermark is embedded in the original data. The watermark energy can be maximized at each of the selected pixels by quantizing them to the maximum allowable levels suggested by Human Visual System (HVS) model. But as the attacks become very severe, a single copy of the watermark is not sufficient for correct retrieval. Hence, we propose a method of optimum retrieval of watermark from multiple embedded copies under very severe attacks. We propose to use Chair-Varshney (CV) decision fusion rule to decide each bit in the watermark instead of majority rule for optimum watermark retrieval. Simulations are performed to show the superiority of the method by embedding different number of watermark copies under various attacks.

I. I NTRODUCTION Recent years have witnessed an outgrowth in the volume of digital data which can be easily manipulated and reproduced. Digital watermarking has been proposed as a means for copyright protection, owner verification, content authentication and broadcast monitoring. A number of watermarking algorithms in spatial domain [1], [2] as well as transform domain have been proposed. A major disadvantage of spatial domain techniques is the low robustness of the watermark. The robustness of the watermark could be improved if the properties of the cover image could be exploited. The most commonly
*Corresponding author

Initially.  ¥¡ and  ¤£ are fixed for all bits in every copy of the watermark. Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) and Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) [3]. the retrieval becomes extremely difficult. normal detection and retrieval techniques fail to reproduce the original watermark. This is very well achieved with wavelet domain significant pixels quantized to their maximum using HVS model. Hence we propose to use CV rule for optimum detection of each of the watermark bit. To use CV rule for detection. different types of filtering and histogram 2 . then a single copy of the watermark is enough to meet the requirements. the DWT has gained interest among watermarking researchers.used transforms for digital watermarking are Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT). In this paper. Given its suitability to model the HVS behavior. we propose to embed more number of watermarks under such stringent conditions. If the selection of pixels is such that the robustness is assured. watermark strength modulation is accomplished through a mask giving a pixel by pixel measure of the sensitivity of the human eye to local image perturbations. But. [9] to make it suitable to the computation of the maximum visibly tolerable watermark energy that can be used for each DWT coefficient. we have selected only those attacks which very severely distort the image and affect the retrieval of the watermark. In [9] a blind watermarking algorithm which embeds the watermark in the DWT domain by exploiting the characteristics of the human visual system is presented. [7]. as the attacks become severe and noticeable distortions are produced on the watermarked image. These values are later modified to different values depending on the retrieved bit and the actually expected bit at that position. the set of pixels which are selected for watermark embedding is to be chosen such that both transparency and robustness conditions are met. the number of watermark copies to be embedded is also of concern since too many copies may distort the perceptual quality of the image. But. When a watermark is embedded into an original data. We test the proposed method for robust detection under high compression. [6]. Mask construction relies on a work by Lewis and Knowles [10]. noise addition. Some modifications to the method by Lewis and Knowles are proposed by Barni et al. Here. as there is lot of deterioration. So. [8]. [4]. we need to know the probabilities of detection ( of false alarm (  ¢¡  ¤£ ) and probabilities ) for each bit in each copy of the watermark. This is possible since it is a non-blind scheme. At the same time. [5].

Also. Wavelet detail image is obtained as the convolution of the image with the wavelet function dilated at different scales. Three level wavelet decomposition with different bands algorithm watermark is embedded into the significant pixels in bands  ¢¡¤£¦¥§¡ and ¨© . It is observed that just 3 copies are enough for correct retrieval when CV rule is used for deciding the watermark bits. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. we can notice improvement in detection as the number of watermark copies are increased. Section III describes how CV rule can be efficiently utilized for this particular application. Section V draws conclusions. II. 1. P ROPOSED A LGORITHM Wavelet representation of any data gives information about the variations of the data at different scales. In the proposed Fig. 3 . 1. We have used three level wavelet decomposition using Haar wavelet to locate significant pixels [11]. Section IV gives the simulation results with Lena image under various embedding conditions and attacks. These coefficients are called children coefficients. We can further study the wavelet coefficients for the same points at a finer scale. The three level wavelet decomposition is shown in Fig. Section II briefly explains the idea of significant pixels and introduces HVS model used in our method. But for calculating the significance factor ’  ’ we have considered all the bands except  ¡ .equalization. We know from which signal points each wavelet coefficient at a particular scale is computed. We have simulated results with majority rule and CV rule with watermark copies varying from 1 to 8.

(1) After calculating significance factor(S) at every pixel in bands   ¡ £dc ¡ and ¥ ¡ . The model presented in this paper is with reference to the four level decomposed image. Moreover we expect higher the first set of significant pixels. H or D as ‘¤ ’ varies. The £ © £!"$# # £ © 6)98A@ £B6"C8EDF" 021%' 3¦4 &)§ ( 1 ¥   5¥ 7 £ © QRS8UT £VQWC8UXY" £ 4 §&)1 ( ¥ 1 © 1 P   ¢§  G 1 HI%' ` © £!bab  © is defined as follows. Here w 0£ © £!r‡w † 0£ © £!VˆI6 (3) (4) and qDq q¤ q denote the level of decomposition and the orientation of the selected band respectively. which is the maximum quantization at every pixel below the level of perception. This essentially means that the pixels with maximum significance factor are watermarked when a single copy is inserted. To locate the significant pixels. choose every pixel in third level.  ¢¡ for the first copy recovered from fhgpi . e Here ¨ ¡q £ £ £ 3 w ©£   C© q  ©  £!rs  ©  ©  £S#utve ) ©  £! is the watermarked pixel and @'xi B £ 6 " £ y€y€y‚ (2) t is the multiplication factor to keep the water- mark below the level of perception. The value of q. w † 0£ © £!‰‘©’D £“¤!•”b©’D £V £—–˜©’D £V £! §d™ © Each term in the above equation is explained below. The watermark is embedded at every significant pixel in band   ©R© £ as Let the watermark be represented by a column vector of size follows. say   © its corresponding children coefficients at all finer resolutions namely ¨¡ significance factor (S) of every pixel in band ¤ © £     © £  ¦¥ £ and  ¢§ £ £ and . The suffix ‘i’ denotes the level of wavelet decomposition in which that particular band is present. According to this model maximum allowable distortion at every pixel is estimated as the weighted product of three different parameters. Watermark Embedding Let us denote the bands by  ¢¡ £ where ‘B’ can be replaced by V. these values are sorted. where band  ¡ in Fig. 1 is further decomposed into   Sƒ d £ c„ƒ¤£¦¥…ƒ and  ƒ .A. The value of t is unity if the watermark is binary. The first term 4 ‰'©’D £“¤ . Pixels with higher significance factor are watermarked first. is calculated using HVS model as given in [9]. obtained after randomizing.

P 0 ! A i A© –˜©’D £V £!  3 £ F 0 ©IH„#  3 G 3   3"4 § i7 £ 4 § B 4 § C 4 E 6 §D yTSVU¡6XWE P ©—ir#H # 6 P! 0 £ ir#YP‘# A A ‘# 6  3 RQ © P 0 a ! 6 ` £3P (8) where the first term gives the local mean square value and Var gives the variance around the 2x2 neighborhood of each pixel.16. ¥¥ ‰‘©’D £“¤!  ¥§©¨ ¥¥ ¥¥ 0. ”b©’D £V £r ir# ©’D £V £ where (5)   P P! # 0 " £ i # P! # 0" ©’D £V £  6   ©—i # 6 6 (6) Since eye is less sensitive to very dark regions as in the case of bright regions. Since watermark bits are embedded 5 . in [9]. if l=1 6 £ i  ¤…xi ¥ . Eyes are less sensitive to noise in high resolution bands and bands having orientation of Q¡ £¢ ¤¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ 1.32. We have used Peak Signalto-Noise Ratio (PSNR) as measure of perceptual quality of the watermarked image. After embedding the watermark. Also it considers the fact that eyes are less sensitive to very dark and very bright regions of the image.  ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥¥ ¥  The second term takes into account the local brightness based on the gray-level values of the low pass version of the image. this factor is computed in the following way. this factor is modified as in the following equation. if l=3 . if l=0 ¤¥  ¥ ¥ ¦ ¦ 0.00. † q7©’D £V £!  i8$b©’D £V £!¦£  ©’D £V £¦ £ ¥ ¥ © £'&)( y0  o1325476Ie 9  8@4 i % (7) The third term takes care of the fact that eye is less sensitive to noise in highly textured areas but more sensitive near edges. inverse transformation is performed to get the watermarked image. B. if l=2 i £ otherwise  ¥§ 0. In [10].10.takes into account the sensitivity to noise depending on the band. Watermark Detection and Evaluation For extracting the watermark from a possibly tampered image we need to use the original image and hence our algorithm is non-blind.

Thus we could get all inserted copies of the watermark. Suppose there are N bits in the watermark. is the corresponding probability of miss detection. corresponding to each bit of the watermark. Then i 8   ¡  bits. Fig. we surely detect it incorrectly. if a bit is not detected correctly. Our aim is to make an optimum decision on each of the watermark bit. Hence multiple copies are embedded and it is necessary to know how the corresponding bit from different copies can be fused together to form a good estimate while each copy is prone to large amount of error.only into the significant pixels. While retrieving the watermark. Also. O PTIMUM D ECISION F USION USING CV RULE The embedded watermark is of binary nature and hence we need to decide whether a 1 or a 0 has been embedded in the selected pixels. (9)   ¡£¡¢ 4 ¥ e ¡ e ¡q    ¤ ¡¥¢ 4 © ¡¦¢ 4 © ¡ ¥ e ¡ ¡ ¥ e¨§ ¡ III. 2. based on these Let   ¡ be the probability of detection for any bit e ¡ 0 . then normalized correlation coefficient is defined as follows. Normalized correlation coefficient( ) is defined as a measure of similarity between the original watermark (w) and retrieved watermark (w’). we receive  bits. we need to locate these pixels on the possibly attacked image and then get the quantization at those pixels. we decide each watermark bit using CV rule. Let us also watermark copies are embedded into the original data. When we consider very severe attacks. Bit aggregation from different watermarks Let us assume that assume that  e ¡0 is the D© bit of the © copy of the watermark. From these copies retrieved. This makes the false alarm probability same as the probability of miss 6 . the retrieval becomes poor with a single copy of the watermark.

7 . Thus all bits from one particular copy will be having the same  ¥¡ initially. Moreover. This actually accounts for false positives. ¥ ¥ ¥V¥  ( and ¥ ¥§ ¨¥ §d¥ xi . Assuming the minimum probability of error criterion. let the a priori probabilities of detecting watermark bit 1 and 0 be and     § respectively. The optimum decision rule is given by the likelihood ratio test.     ©e ©e  ¥ 0 £Ve ¥ 0 £Ve 0 Ve © 0 £Ve © £ PV0 £"y€y€y€y e PV0 £"y€y€y€y e ¢ 3¦0 ˆ¡  x  iW £¤ ¥    § ¦ © ¥ ¥§8§¥ V § §W 3¦0 ¡ ˆ    (  ¢ § ¥ ©¦¥ d § ¥8§¥ V ¥ ¥d (10) The quantity on heft hand side is the likelihood ratio and Bayes’ optimum threshold is on the right hand side.   §V§… (11) ¢ ¥   £¤  © ¢ e ¡  x ˆ  W i  §     ©e¢¡ ˆ   ( ¢ § ¥ Using Bayes’ rule to express the conditional probabilities. Thus. Then we compare each of the extracted bit with the corresponding bit in the original watermark. We have simulated results with 200 random watermarks. to check if any other watermark is detected or any false positive is produced by this method.   x  iWˆ ¢ e  sD© D ©   ©¦  ©¦   ( ˆ ¢ e        G A    A G  ¥ i 8 © D D  ©   #   £ # ¤   £ § ¥ i 8 ¤ ˜ §  ¢¡ and (14) We assume that the content owner has the copy of the original image and watermark for proving the ownership. The data fusion problem can be viewed as a binary hypothesis testing problem with corresponding bit from each watermark copy being the observations. Also. ¢ ¥   ¦  xiWˆ e¢ £¤ ©   ©¦   ( ˆ e¢ ¢ § i The corresponding likelihood ratio test is ¢ ¥ £¤ ¦  x ©  W i ˆ e ¢  D ©   ©¦   ( ˆ ¢  e  ¢ § (12)   ( (13) But the left hand side of the equation is defined as follows [12]. we assume them to be equal.detection. We assume initial values for   £ according to the correlation coefficient obtained between the original watermark and retrieved watermark. If both these are same we increase the   ¡ value by some amount  and decrease the  ¥£ value by the same amount.   £    G xi 8   ¡ ¥ for any bit.

E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS We have chosen Lena image of size   i 6˜g   i 6 and a binary watermark of size 7 i g i7 for experimentation.20 Figure 1a shows the binary watermark chosen and Figure 1b and 1c show the watermarked images with a single copy and three copies of watermark embedded respectively. We have embedded a single watermark at first on the highest significant pixels and then increased the number of watermarks from one to eight. A.58 40.00 43. 8 . Three level wavelet transform of the image is performed and the significant pixels are sorted. Pixels with higher significance factor are selected at first for embedding watermark.58 42. (b) Watermarked(1copy) (c) Watermarked(3copies) Original watermark and watermarked image In the following part.83 41. Robustness against attacks We have shown that a single copy of the watermark embedded gives very good robustness when embedded into wavelet significant pixels retaining high PSNR [13].11 40. (a) Watermark Fig. The pixels are quantized as per HVS model. 3.IV.61 41. TABLE I PSNR( B) VARIATION OF   WATERMARKED IMAGES WITH NUMBER OF COPIES No of copies PSNR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 47. we show how the decision from different retrieved watermarks could be efficiently fused together to form the best estimate of the watermark. The Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) variation with different number of embedded copies is shown in Table I.46 45. We perform retrieval using CV rule and majority rule with different number of watermark copies.

we have included images with 3 copies of watermark embedded.7637 0.In this section.9869 0.9804 0.9490 0.9967 0.7860 0.7172 0.9446 0. it is obvious that with 3 copies of watermark.7172 0.7185 0. The attacked image with mean filtering and compression and the retrieved watermarks using CV rule and majority rule are shown in Figure 5. From Table II.7763 0.7768 0.9837 0.9744 0.9673 0.8258 0. TABLE II C ORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AFTER JPEG C OMPRESSION No of copies Majority rule Q=3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CV Rule Q=3 Majority rule Q=5 CV Rule Q=5 Majority rule Q=10 CV Rule Q=10 0. This section includes the results of retrieval after different signal processing operations. In this paper. majority rule could only give a correlation of 0.9412 0.7860 0.9837 0. The first attack that is being considered is JPEG compression with very low quality factors.7185 which is not very good with a watermark of size 16x16.8953 0. we get a very good performance as far as the watermark retrieval is considered.9737 0. Furthermore.9902 0. 5 and 10.9936 0. substantial enhancement in detection with CV rule is also noticeable.9935 1 1 0.9412 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Another attack that was performed on the watermarked image was the compression of the mean filtered image.8266 0. The improvement in detection with increase in number of watermark copies is obvious.9738 0.9251 0. Figure 4 shows the JPEG compressed image with quality factor 3 and the retrieved watermarks from it using CV rule and majority rule when 3 copies of watermark are embedded.8649 0. for all attacks considered.9039 0.8807 0.8506 0. Histogram equalization with just 2 intensity levels was another attack that was performed on the watermarked image.9967 0. The results of mean filtering alone and mean filtering with compression are shown in Table III.8390 0. It should also be noted that with 3 copies of watermark.8896 0.7895 0.8202 0. The quality factor of compression was chosen as 10. The results of this attack is shown in Table IV and 9 . We present the results with quality factors 3. we show the results of some of the attacks which severely distort the watermarked image and the retrieval becomes very poor from such images.9739 0.9840 0.

9627 1 1 1 1 0.8253 0.9902 0.9967 1 1 1 1 0. 4.9902 0. majority rule gives a very low correlation coefficient with retrieved watermark as shown 10 . (b) CV Rule (c) Majority rule JPEG compressed image and retrieved watermarks using CV rule and majority rule TABLE III C ORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AFTER MEAN FILTER + JPEG (Q=10) No of copies Mean filter Majority rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mean filter CV Rule Mean filter and JPEG Majority Rule Mean filter and JPEG CV Rule 0.9326 0.(a) Compressed image(Q=3) Fig.9968 1 1 (a) Mean filter+Compression(Q=10) Fig.9606 0.9671 0.9869 1 0.9203 0.8945 0.8935 0.9438 0.8664 0.9075 0. (b) CV Rule (c) Majority rule Mean filtered and compressed image and retrieved watermark using CV rule and majority rule 3 copies of embedded watermark give a good retrieval with CV rule. At the same time.8253 0.9657 0.9370 0. 5.9075 0.9869 0.

9340 0. They include Gaussian blur with different window sizes. The results are included in Table VI. The retrieved watermarks from this image with correlation coefficients 0.9360 0. Three copies of the watermark could give a correlation coefficient of 0.9440 with CV rule and 0.6435 by CV rule and majority rule respectively are also shown in Figure 7b and 7c.6266 0.6538 0.7709 0.9778 0.8111 0.6266 0. 11 . linear blur and pixelization. Moreover the attacked image with   g¡  window in which 3 watermark copies are inserted is shown in Figure 7a.9484 0.6866 0.7731 0.7427 0.9540 and Figure 6. The results with Gaussian blurred image with different window sizes are included in Table V.7686 0. 6. TABLE IV C ORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AFTER HISTOGRAM EQUALIZATION No of copies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Majority rule CV Rule 0.8452 0.6797 with majority rule as shown in Figure 8.9620 0.9811 (a) Histogram equalized image (b) CV Rule (c) Majority rule Fig. Linear blur is performed on the watermarked image and the retrieval is verified with both majority rule and CV rule. Histogram equalized image(only 2 levels) and retrieved watermark using CV rule and majority rule We have tried other signal processing operations using GIMP software.

7602 0.8566 0.9416 0.9902 0.8545 0. The results with   g¡  pixelization are included in Table VII.7844 0.7799 0.9707 0.7522 0. The attacked image where 3 watermark copies are inserted 12 .6038 0.6509 0.9967 0.9737 (a) Gaussian blur (7x7) Fig.7647 0.8958 0.9211 0.6038 0.8962 0.9935 0.6435 0.9577 0.6312 0.7501 0.9967 0.9281 0.9673 0.9543 0.7621 0.9439 0.8833 0.9772 Pixelization was another attack that was considered.7593 0.9545 0.9738 0.9509 0.7957 0.7621 0.9574 0.7758 0.9804 0.7808 0.7045 0.9440 0.9687 0.9481 0.8730 0.7193 0.TABLE V C ORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AFTER G AUSSIAN BLUR No of copies 3x3 Majority rule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3x3 CV Rule 5x5 Majority Rule 5x5 CV Rule 7x7 Majority Rule 7x7 CV Rule 0.6509 0.9838 0.6984 0. (b) CV Rule (c) Majority rule Gaussian blurred image and retrieved watermark using CV rule and majority rule TABLE VI C ORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AFTER LINEAR BLUR No of copies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Majority rule CV Rule 0. 7.8656 0.9707 0.9543 0.8783 0.9837 0.6797 0.9805 0.7252 0.7248 0.9540 0.7640 0.9115 0.8693 0.6312 0.

5632 0.7000 0. 9.5577 0.8912 0. (b) CV Rule (c) Majority rule Pixelized image and retrieved watermark using CV rule and majority rule and the retrieved watermarks using CV rule and majority rule are shown in Figure 9. 8.5618 0.6394 0.8968 0.9181 0.5618 0.6523 0.8015 0.9347 (a) Pixelized (8x8) Fig. 13 .6224 0.(a) Linear blur Fig.8603 0. (b) CV Rule (c) Majority rule Linear blurred image and retrieved watermark using CV rule and majority rule TABLE VII C ORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AFTER PIXELIZATION No of copies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Majority rule CV Rule 0.9176 0.5618 0.

 ¤¡ and  ¤£ decided using random watermark samples are shown in Fig. Correlation coefficients with random watermarks V. 10.B. C ONCLUSION In this paper. False Positives We have initially mentioned that. But as the attacks become severe and distort the image to a high degree it becomes difficult to detect it. we have simulated our proposed method with 200 random watermarks. not a single false positive was detected. The correlation coefficients with both CV rule and majority rule with Figure 10. We have shown in this work that under such conditions. However. Majority rule is usually considered for efficient detection from multiple copies. CV rule outperforms 14 . This may result in false positives.9 as the threshold value of correlation coefficient for watermark detection. We have selected 0.   ¡ and  ¤£ for each bit for any given copy of the watermark would be either increased or decreased after comparing it with the actual bit in that position. To check for any false positives. The detection/retrieval was proved to be robust under normal attacks from wavelet significant pixels. we have introduced optimum data fusion for perfect reconstruction of watermarks from the retrieved watermark copies under severe attacks. The detection in such a case could be improved by embedding multiple copies of watermark.

pp. vol. Image Proc. vol. [4] C. Sebe. Yamamoto.. 2–10. pp. T. “Content-based image retrieval using wavelet-based salient points. [8] Masoud Alghoniemy and Ahmed H. “A multiresolution watermark for digital images. Lew. Tian. “Optimal data fusion in multiple sensor detection systems. Image Proc.” Proc. 2000. vol. and U. pp. Sept. K. A. 206–215. E82-A. vol. AES-22. Dec. W. 13. Boncelet.” Proceedings of IEEE Int. “A robust digital image watermarking scheme using wavelet based fusion. Conf. 297–308. vol. and G. 3.” Proceedings of SPIE. 1992. Wu. J.” IEEE Trans. no. and Alessandro Piva. 1997. Ruanaidh. Sci. Image proc. Electron.B. and F. 219–222. Feb. Dowling. J. 15 . 1997. [12] Z. Boland. Image Processing. Conf. M. Merchant. Inoue. vol. Katsura. pp. 244–250. “Significant pixel watermarking using human visual system model in wavelet domain. and T.. Int. pp. “Improved wavelet based watermarking through pixel-wise masking. 1986. S.. Comput. “Phase watermarking of digital images.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 1. Aerospace and Electronic Systems. Fund. 470–477. E. 3. we could see that just three copies of watermark are sufficient for retrieval even when the attack severely distorts the image. [2] R. vol. R EFERENCES [1] R. May 2001.. 5. B. [7] X. 3. Image Proc. From experimentation. S.” IEICE Trans. [13] M Jayalakshmi. “A watermark for digital images. 10. Chair and P. A. Knowles. [10] A. S. Conf. pp. S. Franco Bartolini..” Proceedings of IEEE Int. J. “A digital watermark based on wavelet transform and its robustness on image compression and transformation. 544–547. Jan. Image Proc. Delp. pp. Sept.” Proceedings of IEEE Int. Dec. Hatzinakos.majority rule. “Hidden signatures in images.. 3228. pp. R. and T. Sept.” IEEE Trans. Tewfik. Apr. 4315. “Fragile watermarking using the vw2d watermark. L.” Proc. vol. Jan. Arce. pp. 1996. 98–101. 239–242. 548–551. vol. K. 145–153. 4338.” IEEE Trans. pp. Lewis and G. Conf. N. [9] Mauro Barni. M. Image proc. vol. Huang. O. vol. 1999. “Image compression using 2-d wavelet transform. J. pp. 2004. Wolfgang and E. Image Processing. Delp. C. [6] H. N. Hsu and J. Oct.” Proceedings of SPIE... pp. Kundur and D. pp. Commun. [3] J. Desai. 425–436. 1997. Xia.” IEEE Trans. Loupias. Conf. J. Int.. 223–226. “Geometric invariance in image watermarking. Varshney. [5] D. 2006. Miyazaki. 1996. Wolfgang and E.. Nov. [11] Q. B. 1996. Oct.