Advertisement

International Journal of Computer Vision

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 127–141 | Cite as

On the relative complexity of active vs. passive visual search

  • John K. Tsotsos
Article

Abstract

Here, this author attempts to tie the concept of active perception to attentive processing in general and to the complexity level analysis of visual search described previously; the aspects of active vision as they have been currently described form a subset of the full spectrum of attentional capabilities. Our approach is motivated by the search requirements of vision tasks and thus we cast the problem as one of search preceding the application of methods for shape-from-X, optical flow, etc., and recognition in general. This perspective permits a dimension of analysis not found in current formulations of the active perception problem, that of computational complexity. This article describes where the active perception paradigm does and does not provide computational benefits along this dimension. A formalization of the search component of active perception is presented in order to accomplish this. The link to attentional mechanisms is through the control of data acquisition and processing by the active process. It should be noted that the analysis performed here applies to the general hypothesize-and-test search strategy, to time-varying scenes as well as to the general problem of integration of successive fixations. Finally, an argument is presented as to why this framework is an extension of the behaviorist approaches to active vision.

Keywords

Computer Vision Visual Search Optical Flow Full Spectrum Attentive Processing 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott, A., and Ahuja, N. 1988. Surface reconstruction by dynamic integration of focus, camera vergence and stereo. Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. Comput, Vision, December, Tarpon Springs FL, pp. 532–543.Google Scholar
  2. Aloimonos, J., Weiss, I., and Bandyopadhyay, A. 1987. Active vision, Proc. Ist Intern. Conf. Comput. Vision, London, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
  3. Bajcsy, R. 1985. Active perception vs. passive perception. Proc. IEEE Workshop on Computer Vision: Representation and Control, October, Bellaire MI, pp. 55–62.Google Scholar
  4. Ballard, D. 1985. Task frames in visuo-motor coordination. Proc. IEEE Workshop on Computer Vision: Representation and Control, October, Bellaire MI, pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
  5. Ballard, D. 1987. Eye movements and visual cognition. Proc. IEEE Workshop Spatial Reasoning and Multi-sensor Fusion, St. Charles IL, October, pp. 188–200.Google Scholar
  6. Ballard, D. 1989. Animate vision. Proc. 11th Intern. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell., DetroitGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballard, D., and Ozcandarli, A. 1988. Eye fixation and early vision: Kinetic depth. Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. Comput. Vision, Tarpon Springs, FL, pp. 524–531.Google Scholar
  8. Bandyopadhyay, A., Chandra, B., and Ballard, D. 1986. Active navigation: Tracking an environmental point considered beneficial. Proc. IEEE Workshop on Motion: Representation and Analysis, Charleston, SC, May, pp. 23–28.Google Scholar
  9. BrooksR. 1986. A layered intelligent control system for a mobile robot. IEEE J. Robot. Autom. RA-2: 14–23, April.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, J.J., and Ferrier, N. 1988. Modal control of an attentive vision system. Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. Comput. Vision, December, Tarpon Springs, FL, pp. 514–523.Google Scholar
  11. Connell, J. 1989. “A Colony Architecture for an Artificial Creature.” MIT AI Lab, Ph.D. Thesis, AI-TR1151.Google Scholar
  12. Freuder, E. 1976. “A Computer System for Visual Recognition Using Active Knowledge.” Ph.D. thesis; also AI-TR-345, MIT AI Lab, June.Google Scholar
  13. GareyM., and JohnsonD. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman: New York.Google Scholar
  14. GibsonJ.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.Google Scholar
  15. Grimson, E. 1988. The combinatorics of object recognition in cluttered environments using constrained search. Proc. 2nd Intern. Conf. Comput. Vision, Tampa, FL, pp. 218–227.Google Scholar
  16. HelmholtzH.von, 1910. Hanbuch der physiologischen detlk. English translation, J. Southall, Dover: New York, 1925.Google Scholar
  17. KrotkovE. 1987. Focusing, Intern. J. Comput. Vision 1: 223–237.Google Scholar
  18. LaBergeD. 1990. Attention. Psychological Science 1–3, 156–162.Google Scholar
  19. LeeperR. 1935. A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization. J. Genet. Psychol. 46: 41–75.Google Scholar
  20. MarrD. 1982. Vision. W.H. Freeman: New York.Google Scholar
  21. MetzgerW. 1974. Consciousness, Perception and Action. Handbook of Perception, vol. 1, Historical and Philosophical Roots of Perception. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 109–125.Google Scholar
  22. NakayamaK., and MackebenM. 1989. Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention. Vision Research 29(11): 1631–1647.Google Scholar
  23. ParasuramanR., and DaviesD., (editors). 1984. Varieties of Attention. Academic Press: Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  24. Paul, R., Bajcsy, R., et al. 1987. The integration of sensing with actuation to form a robust intelligent control system. GRASP LAB 97, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, March.Google Scholar
  25. RabbittP. 1978. Sorting, categorization and visual search. In The Handbook of Perception: Perceptual Processing, Vol.IX, edited by E.Carterette and M.Freidman. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  26. SteinmanR. 1986. Eye movement. Vision Research 26(9):1389–1400.Google Scholar
  27. TreismanA. 1988. Features and objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol. 40A(2):201/237.Google Scholar
  28. TsotsosJ.K. 1988. A ‘complexity level’ analysis of immediate vision. Intern. J. Comp. Vision 1(4):303–320.Google Scholar
  29. Tsotsos, J.K. 1989. The complexity of perceptual search tasks. Proc Ilth Intern. Conf. Artif. Intell., pp. 1571–1577, Detroit.Google Scholar
  30. TsotsosJ.K. 1990a. A complexity level analysis of vision. Behav. Brain Sci. 13(3):423–455.Google Scholar
  31. TsotsosJ.K. 1990b. A little complexity analysis goes a long way. Behav. Brain Sci. 13(3):459–469.Google Scholar
  32. TsotsosJ.K. 1991. Is complexity analysis appropriate for analyzing biological systems? Behav. Brain Sci. 14(4):770–773.Google Scholar
  33. UhrL. 1990. Some important constraints on complexity. Behav. Brain Sci. 13(3):455–456.Google Scholar
  34. VervilleE., and CameronN. 1946. Age and sex differences in the perception of incomplete pictures in adults. Pedagogical Seminary 68:149–157.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • John K. Tsotsos
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoToronto
  2. 2.Canadian Institute for Advanced ResearchToronto

Personalised recommendations