Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 215–226 | Cite as

Underestimation of visual texture slant by human observers: a model

  • M. R. Turner
  • G. L. Gerstein
  • R. Bajcsy
Article

Abstract

The perspective image of an obliquely inclined textured surface exhibits shape and density distortions of texture elements which allow a human observer to estimate the inclination angle of the surface. However, it has been known since the work of Gibson (1950) that, in the absence of other cues, humans tend to underestimate the slant angle of the surface, particularly when the texture is perceived as being “irregular.” The perspective distortions which affect texture elements also shift the projected spatial frequencies of the texture in systematic ways. Using a suitable local spectral filter to measure these frequency gradients, the inclination angle of the surface may be estimated. A computational model has been developed which performs this task using distributions of outputs from filters found to be a good description of simple-cell receptive fields. However, for “irregular” textures the filter output distributions are more like those of “regular” textures at shallower angles of slant, leading the computational algorithm to underestimate the slant angle. This behavioral similarity between human and algorithm suggests the possibility that a similar visual computation is performed in cortex.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adelson EH, Bergen JR (1985) Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. J Opt Soc Am A 2:284–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajcsy R, Lieberman L (1976) Texture gradient as a depth cue. Comput Graph Image Process 5:52–67Google Scholar
  3. Braunstein ML (1968) Motion and texture as sources of slant information. J Exp Psychol 78:247–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brodatz P (1966) Textures, a photographic album for artists and designers. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell FW, Robson JG (1968) Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. J Physiol (London) 197:551–566Google Scholar
  6. Clark WC, Smith AH, Rabe A (1956) The interaction of surface texture, outline gradient and ground in the perception of slant. Can J Psychol 10:1–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Daugman JG (1980) Two-dimensional spectral analysis of cortical receptive field profiles. Vision Res 20:847–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Daugman JG (1985) Uncertainty relation for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensioanl visual cortical filters. J Opt Soc Am A 2:1160–1169PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Enroth-Cugell C, Robson JG (1966) The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat. J Physiol (London) 187:517–552Google Scholar
  10. Epstein W, Park J (1964) Examination of Gibson's psychophysical hypothesis. Psychol Bull 62:180–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Erickson RP (1963) Sensory neural patterns and gustation. In: Zotterman Y (eds) Olfaction and taste. Macmillan, New York, pp 205–213Google Scholar
  12. Erickson RP (1974) Parallel “population” neural coding in feature extraction. In: Schmitt FO, Worden FG (eds) The neurosciences: third study program. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass, pp 155–169Google Scholar
  13. Flock H, Moscatelli A (1964) Variables of surface texture and accuracy of space perceptions. Percep Motor Skills 19:327–334Google Scholar
  14. Gabor D (1946) Theory of communication. J Inst Electr Eng (London) 93:429–457Google Scholar
  15. Gibson JJ (1950) The perception of visual surfaces. Am J Psychol 63:367–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson JJ (1979) The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibson JJ, Cornsweet J (1952) The perceived slant of visual surfaces — optical and geographical. J Exp Psychol 44:11–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruber HE, Clark WC (1956) Perception of slanted surface. Percep Motor Skills 6:97–106Google Scholar
  19. Hopfield JJ, Tank DW (1986) Computing with neural circuits: a model. Science 233:625–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1959) Receptive fields of single neurons in the cat's striate cortex. J Physiol (London) 148:574–591Google Scholar
  21. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1962) Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. J Physiol (London) 160:106–154Google Scholar
  22. Jones JP, Palmer LA (1987a) The two-dimensional spatial structure of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex. J Neurophysiol 58:1187–1211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones JP, Palmer LA (1987b) An evaluation of the two-dimensional Gabor filter model of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex. J Neurophysiol 58:1233–1258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones JP, Stepnoski A, Palmer LA (1987) The two-dimensional spectral structure of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex. J Neurophysiol 58:1212–1232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. MacKay DM (1981) Strife over visual cortical function. Nature 289:117–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Marcelja S (1980) Mathematical description of the responses of simple cortical cells. J Opt Soc Am 70:1297–1300PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Marr D (1982) Vision. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  28. Perrone JA (1980) Slant underestimation: a model based on the size of the viewing aperture. Perception 9:285–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ (1986) Learning internal representations by error propagation. In: Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL (eds) Parallel distributed processing: exploring the microstructures of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 318–364Google Scholar
  30. Sejnowski TJ, Koch C, Churchland PS (1988) Computational neuroscience. Science 241:1299–1307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Stevens K (1983) Slant — tilt: the visual encoding of surface orientation. Biol Cybern 46:183–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Turner MR (1986) Texture discrimination by Gabor functions. Biol Cybern 55:71–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Turner MR, Bajcsy R, Gerstein GL (1989a) Estimation of textured surface inclination by parallel local spectral analysis. University of Pennsylvania Technical Report: MS-CIS-89-42 GRASP LAB 184, March, 1989Google Scholar
  34. Turner MR, Salganicoff M, Gerstein GL, Bajcsy R (1989b) Receptive fields for the determination of textured surface inclination. Univerity of Pennsylvania Technical Report: MS-CIS-89-48, GRASP LAB 187, July, 1989Google Scholar
  35. Weber AG (1986) Image data base. Technical Report USC SIPI Report 101, University of Southern California, Signal and Image Processing Institute, February, 1986Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. R. Turner
    • 1
  • G. L. Gerstein
    • 1
  • R. Bajcsy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhysiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations