A Bioplausible Model for Explaining Café Wall Illusion: Foveal vs. Peripheral Resolution

  • Nasim Nematzadeh
  • David M. W. Powers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10072)


Optical illusions highlight sensitivities and limitations of human visual processing and studying them leads to insights about perception that can potentially help computer vision match or exceed human performance. Geometric illusions are a subclass of illusions in which orientations and angles are distorted and misperceived. In this paper, a quantifiable prediction is presented of the degree of tilt for the Café Wall pattern, a typical geometric illusion, in which the mortar between the tiles seems to converge and diverge. Our study employs a bioplausible model of ON-center retinal processing, using an analytic processing pipeline to measure, quantitatively, the angle of tilt content in the model. The model also predicts different perceived tilts in different areas of the fovea and periphery as the eye saccades to different parts of the image. This variation is verified and quantified in simulations using two different sampling methods. Several sampling sizes and aspect ratios, modeling variant foveal views, are investigated across multiple scales in order to provide confidence intervals around the predicted tilts, and to contrast local tilt detection with a global average across the whole Café Wall image.


Tilt Angle Lateral Inhibition Coarse Scale Hough Transform Reference Orientation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Field, G.D., Chichilnisky, E.J.: Information processing in the primate retina: circuitry and coding. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 1–30 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gollisch, T., Meister, M.: Eye smarter than scientists believed: neural computations in circuits of the retina. Neuron 65(2), 150–164 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morgan, M.J., Moulden, B.: The Münsterberg figure and twisted cords. Vis. Res. 26(11), 1793–1800 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Earle, D.C., Maskell, S.J.: Fraser cords and reversal of the Café Wall illusion. Perception 22(4), 383–390 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nematzadeh, N., Lewis, T.W., Powers, D.M.W.: Bioplausible multiscale filtering in retinal to cortical processing as a model of computer vision. In: ICAART2015-International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, SCITEPRESS (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jameson, D., Hurvich, L.M.: Essay concerning color constancy. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 40(1), 1–24 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gregory, R.L., Heard, P.: Border locking and the Café Wall illusion. Perception 8(4), 365–380 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kitaoka, A., Pinna, B., Brelstaff, G.: Contrast polarities determine the direction of Café Wall tilts. Perception 33(1), 11–20 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCourt, M.E.: Brightness induction and the Café Wall illusion. Perception 12(2), 131–142 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ratliff, F., Knight, B., Graham, N.: On tuning and amplification by lateral inhibition. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 62(3), 733–740 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cook, P.B., McReynolds, J.S.: Lateral inhibition in the inner retina is important for spatial tuning of Ganglion cells. Nat. Neurosci. 1(8), 714–719 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, J.Y., Protti, D.A.: The impact of inhibitory mechanisms in the inner retina on spatial tuning of RGCs. Scientific reports 6 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodieck, R.W., Stone, J.: Analysis of receptive fields of cat retinal ganglion cells. J. Neurophysiol. 28(5), 833–849 (1965)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Enroth-Cugell, C., Robson, J.G.: The contrast sensitivity of retinal Ganglion cells of the cat. J. Physiol. 187(3), 517–552 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nematzadeh, N., Powers, D.M.W.: A quantitative analysis of tilt in the Café Wall illusion: a bioplausible model for foveal and peripheral vision. In: DICTA (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nematzadeh, N., Powers, D.M.W., Trent, L.: Quantitative analysis of a bioplausible model of misperception of slope in the Café Wall illusion. In: Workshop on Interpretation and Visualization of Deep Neural Nets (WINVIZNN), ACCV (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindeberg, T., Florack, L.: Foveal scale-space and the linear increase of receptive field size as a function of eccentricity (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuffler, S.W.: Neurons in the retina: organization, inhibition and excitation problems. In: Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol. 17, pp. 281–292. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (1952)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marr, D., Hildreth, E.: Theory of edge detection. Proc. Roy. Soc. London B: Biol. Sci. 207(1167), 1187–1217 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Illingworth, J., Kittler, J.: A survey of the Hough transform. Comput. Vis. Graph. Imag. Process. 44(1), 87–116 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Passaglia, C.L., Enroth-Cugell, C., Troy, J.B.: Effects of remote stimulation on the mean firing rate of cat retinal Ganglion cells. J. Neurosci. 21(15), 5794–5803 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nematzadeh, N.: A neurophysiological model for geometric visual illusions. Ph.D. thesis, Flinders University (in preparation)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSEMFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations