Biological Cybernetics

, Volume 110, Issue 2–3, pp 229–236 | Cite as

A DOG filter model of the occurrence of Mach bands on spatial contrast discontinuities

  • Debasis Mazumdar
  • Soma Mitra
  • Kuntal Ghosh
  • Kamales Bhaumik
Letter to the Editor
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The present work proposes a unified model to explain two previously reported properties of the Mach band illusion. The first is the frequently referenced fact that Mach bands are prominently visible at ramps, but practically vanish at intensity steps. The second property, less studied, on the other hand may also be related to the first. It concerns the fact that the width of the illusory Mach bands appears to be a function of the slope of the ramp itself. The model proposed here combines the difference of Gaussians (DOG) model of lateral inhibition in receptive fields with the models of feature detection, based on a holistic approach. The sharpness of discontinuity (SOD) concept for Mach band stimulus has been defined and is related to the slope of the ramp. It is suggested that calculation of SOD leads to an adaptive change in inhibitory surround, a notion that has the support of physiological experiments too.

Keywords

Mach band Lateral inhibition  Fourier analysis  Contrast Adaptive surround 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Albrecht DG, Hamilton DB (1982) Striate cortex of monkey and cat: contrast response function. J Neurophysiol 48:217–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakshi A, Ghosh K (2012) Some insights into why the perception of Mach bands is strong for luminance ramps and weak or vanishing for luminance steps. Perception 41:1403–1408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow H, Fitzhugh R, Kuffler S (1957) Change in organization in the receptive fields of the cat’s retina during dark adaptation. J Physiol 137(3):338–354CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Békésy GV (1968a) Brightness distribution across the Mach bands measured with flicker photometry, and the linearity of sensory nervous interaction. J Opt Soc Am 58(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Békésy GV (1968b) Mach- and Hering-type lateral inhibition in vision. Vis Res 8(12):1483–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blakeslee B, McCourt ME (1999) A multiscale spatial filtering account of the White effect, simultaneous brightness contrast and grating induction. Vis Res 39:4361–4377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowers JS (2009) On the biological plausibility of grandmother cells: implications for neural network theories in psychology and neuroscience. Psychol Rev 116:220–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell FW, Robson JG (1968) Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. J Physiol 197(3):551–566CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. De MS, Li B (1998) Derivative computation by multiscale filters. Image Vis Comput 16:43–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enroth-Cugell C, Lennie P (1975) The control of retinal ganglion cell discharge by receptive field surrounds. J Physiol 247(3):551–578CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiorentini A (1972) Mach band phenomena. In: Jameson D, Hurvich LM (eds) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol. VII/4. Visual psychophysics. Springer, New York, pp 188–201Google Scholar
  12. Ghosh K, Sarkar S, Bhaumik K, (2005a) Image enhancement by high-order gaussian derivative filters simulating non-classical receptive fields in the human visual system. In: Pattern recognition and machine intelligence: lecture notes in computer science, vol 3776. Springer, Berlin, pp 453–458Google Scholar
  13. Ghosh K, Sarkar S, Bhaumik K (2005b) A possible mechanism of zero-crossing detection using the concept of extended classical receptive field model of retinal ganglion cells. Biol Cybern 93(1):1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghosh K, Sarkar S, Bhaumik K (2006) A possible explanation of the low-level brightness-contrast illusions in the light of an extended classical receptive field model of retinal ganglion cells. Biol Cybern 94(2):89–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghosh K, Sarkar S, Bhaumik K (2007a) Understanding image structure from a new multi-scale representation of higher order derivative filters. Image Vis Comput 25(8):1228–1238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ghosh K, Bhaumik K, Sarkar S (2007b) Retinomorphic image processing. Prog Brain Res 168:175–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghosh K, Sarkar S, Bhaumik K (2009) A possible mechanism of stochastic resonance in the light of an extra classical receptive field model of retinal ganglion cells. Biol Cybern 100:351–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gross CG (2002) Genealogy of grandmother cell. Neuroscientist 8(5):512–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hartline HK (1940) The receptive fields of optic nerve fibres. Am J Physiol 130(4):690–699Google Scholar
  20. Hubel DH, Wiesel TN (1962) Receptive fields binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. J Physiol 60:106–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuffler SW (1952) Neurons in the retina: organization, inhibition and excitation problems. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 17:281–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Marr D, Hildreth E (1980) Theory of edge detection. Proc R Soc Lond B 207:187–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Marr D (1982) Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Matthews ML (1966) Appearance of Mach bands for short durations and at sharply focused contours. J Opt Soc Am 56(10):1401–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morrone MC, Ross J, Burr DC, Owens R (1986) Mach bands are phase dependent. Nature 324:250–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pessoa L (1996) Mach bands: How many models are possible? Recent experimental findings and modelling attempts. Vis Res 36(19):3205–3227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Poggio T, Voorhees H, Yuille A (1988) A regularized solution of edge detection. J Complex 4(2):106–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ratliff F (ed) (1965) Mach bands: quantitative studies on neural networks in the retina. Holden-Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Ratliff F, Milkman N, Rennert N (1983) Attenuation of Mach bands by adjacent stimuli. Proc Nat Acad Sci 80(14):4554–4558CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Ratliff F (1984) Why Mach bands are not seen at the edges of a step. Vis Res 24(2):163–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Robinson A, Hammon P, de Sa V (2007) Explaining brightness illusions using spatial filtering and local response normalization. Vis Res 47:1631–1644CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodieck RW, Stone J (1965) Analysis of receptive fields of cat retinal ganglion cells. J Neurophysiol 28(5):833–849Google Scholar
  33. Ross J, Holt JJ, Johnstone J (1981) High frequency limitation on Mach bands. Vis Res 21(7):1165–1167CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ross J, Morrone MC, Burr DC (1989) The conditions under which Mach bands are visible. Vis Res 29(6):699–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sceniak MP, Ringach DL, Hawken MJ, Shapley R (1999) Contrast’s effect on spatial summation by macaque V1 neurons. Nat Neurosci 2:733–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Sherman SM, Guillery RW (2006) Exploring the thalamus and its role in cortical function, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Syrkin G, Yinon U, Gur M (1994) Simple cells may lie at the basis of Mach bands: evidence from physiological studies in the cat’s visual cortex. Exp Brain Res 102(2):319–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tsui JM, Pack CC (2011) Contrast sensitivity of MT receptive field centers and surrounds. J Neurophysiol 106(4):1888–1900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Tolhurst DJ (1972) On the possible existence of edge detector neuron in the human visual system. Vis Res 12:797–804CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wielaard J, Sajda P (2005) Neural mechanisms of contrast dependent receptive field size in V1. In: Proceedings of the neural information processing systems conference (NIPS 2005), pp 1505–1512Google Scholar
  41. Young RA (1987) The Gaussian derivative model for vision: I. Retinal mechanisms. Spat Vis 2:273–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Young RA, Lesperance RM, Meyer WW (2001) The Gaussian derivative model for spatial–temporal vision: I. Cortical model. Spat Vis 14:261–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debasis Mazumdar
    • 1
  • Soma Mitra
    • 1
  • Kuntal Ghosh
    • 2
  • Kamales Bhaumik
    • 1
  1. 1.CDAC, KolkataKolkataIndia
  2. 2.Center for Soft Computing Research and Machine Intelligence UnitIndian Statistical InstituteKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations