Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 65, Issue 5, pp 375–380 | Cite as

Symbolic grouping versus simple cell models

  • A. Brookes
  • K. A. Stevens
Article
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The apparent line-like structure in dot patterns derives substantially from the orientation defined by pairings of adjacent dots. Two alternative models have been proposed for making these pairings, one in which the individual dots are treated as discrete grouping tokens, and the second in which the pairing orientation derives from spatial summation by simple cell receptive fields. Contradictory evidence has been found both directly in support of, and directly against, both models. Much of the debate about these two models has hinged on the degree of linearity of summation expected in the simple cell model. Recent neurophysiological evidence changes the balance of the debate, invalidating certain earlier arguments based on linearity and providing a novel way of showing that simple cells do indeed play a major, but not necessarily exclusive, role in dot groupings.

Keywords

Alternative Model Cell Model Receptive Field Simple Cell Contradictory Evidence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Attneave F (1955) Perception of place in a circular field. Am J Psychol 68:69–82Google Scholar
  2. Attneave F (1974) Apparent movement and the what-where connection. Psychologia 17:108–120Google Scholar
  3. Beck J, Halloran T (1985) Effects of spatial separation and retinal eccentricity on two-dot vernier acuity. Vision Res 25:1105–1111Google Scholar
  4. Bishop PO, Henry GH (1972) Striate neurones: receptive field concepts. Invest Ophthalmol 11:346–355Google Scholar
  5. Bishop PO, Coombs JS, Henry GH (1971) Responses to visual contours: spatio-temporal aspects of excitation in the receptive fields of simple striate neurones. J Physiol 219:626–657Google Scholar
  6. Caelli TM, Julesz B (1978) On perceptual analyzers underlying visual texture discrimination: Part I. Biol Cybern 28:167–175Google Scholar
  7. Caelli TM, Preston GAN, Howell ER (1978) Implications of spatial summation models for processes of contour perception: a geometric perspective. Vision Res 18:723–734Google Scholar
  8. Carlson CR, Anderson CH, Moeller JR (1980) Visual illusions without low spatial frequencies. Invest Opthalmol Vis Sci [Suppl] 19:165Google Scholar
  9. Daugman JG (1985) Uncertainty relation for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters. J Opt Soc Am 2:1160–1169Google Scholar
  10. Ginsberg AP (1973) Pattern recognition techniques suggested from psychological correlates of a model of the human visual system. 1973 IEEE Trans Aerospace Electron 9:625–635Google Scholar
  11. Glass L (1969) Moire effect from random dots. Nature 223:578–580Google Scholar
  12. Glass L (1979) Physiological mechanisms for the perception of random dot moire patterns. In: Haken H (ed) Pattern formation by dynamic systems and pattern recognition. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Glass L, Perez (1973) Perception of random dot interference patterns. Nature 246:360–362Google Scholar
  14. Glass L, Switkes E (1976) Pattern recognition in humans: correlations which cannot be perceived. Perception 5:67–72Google Scholar
  15. Hammond P, MacKay DM (1983a) Influence of luminance gradient reversal on simple cells in feline striate cortex. J Physiol 337:69–87Google Scholar
  16. Hammond P, MacKay DM (1983b) Effects of luminance gradient reversal on complex cells in cat striate cortex. Exp Brain Res 49:453–456Google Scholar
  17. Hammond P, MacKay DM (1985) Influence of luminance gradient reversal on complex cells in feline striate cortex. J Physiol 359:315–329Google Scholar
  18. Heggelund P, Kreklong S, Skottun B (1983) Spatial summation in the receptive field of simple cells in the cat striate cortex. Exp Brain Res 52:87–98Google Scholar
  19. Henry GH, Goodwin AW, Bishop PO (1978) Spatial summation of responses in receptive fields of single cells in cat striate cortex. Exp Brain Res 32:245–266Google Scholar
  20. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1962) Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. J Physiol 160:106–154Google Scholar
  21. Janez L (1984) Visual grouping without low spatial frequencies. Vision Res 24:271–274Google Scholar
  22. Julesz B (1981) Figure and ground perception in briefly presented isodipole textures. In: Kubovy M, Pomerantz JR (eds) Perceptual organization. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 27–54Google Scholar
  23. Koehler W (1929) Gestalt phsychology. Liveright, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Koffka K (1935) Principles of Gestalt psychology. Harcourt, Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Lulich DP, Stevens KA (1989) Differential contributions of circular and elongated spatial filters to the Café wall illusion. Biol Cybern 61:427–435Google Scholar
  26. Maloney RK, Mitchison GJ, Barlow HB (1987) Limit to the detection of Glass patterns in the presence of noise. J Opt Soc Am A 4:2336–2341Google Scholar
  27. Marr D (1976) Early processing of visual information. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 275:483–524Google Scholar
  28. Marr D (1982) Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Marr D, Poggio T, Hildreth E (1980) Smallest channel in early human vision. J Opt Soc Am 70:868–870Google Scholar
  30. Movshon JA, Thompson ID, Tolhurst DJ (1978) Spatial summation in the receptive fields of simple cells in the cat's striate cortex. J Physiol 283:53–77Google Scholar
  31. Prazdny K (1984) On the perception of Glass patterns. Perception 13:469–478Google Scholar
  32. Prazdny K (1986) Some new phenomena in the perception of Glass patterns. Biol Cybern 53:153–158Google Scholar
  33. Smits JTS, Vos PG (1986) A model for the perception of curves in dot figures: the role of local salience of virtual lines. Biol Cybern 54:407–416Google Scholar
  34. Stevens KA (1978) Computation of locally parallel structure. Biol Cybern 29:19–28Google Scholar
  35. Stevens KA, Brookes A (1987) Detecting structure by symbolic constructions on tokens. Comput Vision Graph Image Process 37:238–260Google Scholar
  36. Ullman S (1979) The interpretation of visual motion. MIT Press Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  37. Webster MW, De Valois RL (1958) Relationship between spatial-frequency and orientation tuning of striate-cortex cells. J Opt Soc Am 2:1124–1132Google Scholar
  38. Wertheimer M (1923) Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. Psych. Forsch 4:301–350. Cited in: Beardslee DC, Wertheimer M (eds) Readings in perception. Van Nostrand, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Zucker SW (1983) Computational and psychophysical experiments in grouping: early orientation selection. In: Beck J, Hope B, Roseneld A (eds) Human and machine vision, pp 545–567Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Brookes
    • 1
  • K. A. Stevens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations