Panoramic image differences can be used for view-based homing under natural outdoor conditions, because they increase smoothly with distance from a reference location (Zeil et al., J Opt Soc Am A 20(3):450–469, 2003). The particular shape, slope and depth of such image difference functions (IDFs) recorded at any one place, however, depend on a number of factors that so far have only been qualitatively identified. Here we show how the shape of difference functions depends on the depth structure and the contrast of natural scenes, by quantifying the depth- distribution of different outdoor scenes and by comparing it to the difference functions calculated with differently processed panoramic images, which were recorded at the same locations. We find (1) that IDFs and catchment areas become systematically wider as the average distance of objects increases, (2) that simple image processing operations—like subtracting the local mean, difference-of-Gaussian filtering and local contrast normalization—make difference functions robust against changes in illumination and the spurious effects of shadows, and (3) by comparing depth-dependent translational and depth-independent rotational difference functions, we show that IDFs of contrast-normalized snapshots are predominantly determined by the depth-structure and possibly also by occluding contours in a scene. We propose a model for the shape of IDFs as a tool for quantitative comparisons between the shapes of these functions in different scenes.
Image Difference Natural Scene Local Contrast Motion Parallax Horizontal Slice
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.
Collett T, Zeil J (1997b) Selection and use of landmarks by insects. In: Lehrer M (ed) Orientation and communication in arthropods. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp 41–65Google Scholar
Collett T, Zeil J (1998) Places and landmarks: an arthropod perspective. In: Healy S (ed) Spatial representation in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 18–53Google Scholar
Fleet D, Heeger D, Wagner H (1996) Modeling binocular neurons in primary visual cortex. In: Jenkin M, Harris L (eds) Computational and biological mechanisms of visual coding. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 103–130Google Scholar
Nicholson D, Judd S, Cartwritght B, Collett T (1999) Learning walks and landmark guidance in wood ants (Formica rufa). J Exp Biol 202:1831–1838PubMedGoogle Scholar
Osorio D, Vorobyev M (2005) Photoreceptor spectral sensitivities in terrestrial animals: adaptations for luminance and colour vision. Proc R Soc B 272:1745–1752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan M, Laughlin S, Dubs A (1982) Predictive coding: a fresh view of inhibition in the retina. Proc R Soc Lond B 216:427–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szenher M (2005) Visual homing in natural environments. In: Nehmzow U, Melhuish C, Witkowski M (eds) Towards autonomous robotic systems (TAROS-05), p 221Google Scholar
Vardy A, Möller R (2005) Biologically plausible visual homing methods based on optical flow techniques. Connect Sci 17:47–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vladusich T, Hemmi J, Srinivasan M, Zeil J (2005) Interactions of visual odometry and landmark guidance during food search in honeybees. J Exp Biol 208:4123–4135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voss R, Zeil J (1998) Active vision in insects: an analysis of object-directed zig-zag flights in a ground-nesting wasp (Odynerus spinipes, Eumenidae). J Comp Physiol A 182:377–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanker J, Zeil J (2005) Movement-induced motion signal distributions in outdoor scenes. Netw Comp Neural Syst 16:357–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeil J (1993a) Orientation flights of solitary wasps (Cerceris; Sphecidae; Hymenoptera): I. Description of flight. J Comp Physiol A 172:189–205Google Scholar
Zeil J (1993b) Orientation flights of solitary wasps (Cerceris; Sphecidae; Hymenoptera): II. Similarities between orientation and return flights and the use of motion parallax. J Comp Physiol A 172: 207–222Google Scholar
Zeil J, Wittmann D (1993) Landmark orientation during the approach to the nest in the stingless bee Trigona (Tetragonisca) angustula (Apidae, Meliponinae). Insectes Sociaux 40:381–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeil J, Kelber A, Voss R (1996) Structure and function of learning flights in bees and wasps. J Exp Biol 199:245–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
Zeil J, Hofmann M, Chahl J (2003) Catchment areas of panoramic snapshots in outdoor scenes. J Opt Soc Am A 20(3):450–469Google Scholar