DOCSLIB.ORG

A Moving-Barber-Pole Illusion Department of Cognitive Sciences, Peng Sun University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA $

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Moving-Barber-Pole Illusion Department of Cognitive Sciences, Peng Sun University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA $ Journal of Vision (2014) 14(5):1, 1–27 http://www.journalofvision.org/content/14/5/1 1 A moving-barber-pole illusion Department of Cognitive Sciences, Peng Sun University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA $ Department of Cognitive Sciences, Charles Chubb University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA $ Department of Cognitive Sciences, George Sperling University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA $ In the barber-pole illusion (BPI), a diagonally moving stream concerns the assessment of spatial relationships, grating is perceived as moving vertically because of the such as motion and location processing, and the other shape of the vertically oriented window through which it is concerns attributes leading to object identification, such viewed—a strong shape-motion interaction. We introduce as color and form processing (DeYoe & Van Essen, a novel stimulus—the moving barber pole—in which a diagonal, drifting sinusoidal carrier is windowed by a 1988; Maunsell & Newsome, 1987; Ungerleider & raised, vertical, drifting sinusoidal modulator that moves Mishkin, 1982). Under this view, the processing of independently of the carrier. In foveal vision, the moving- motion information should be independent from the barber-pole stimulus can be perceived as several active processing of form information. From a theoretical barber poles drifting horizontally but also as other complex perspective, motion can be computed without explicit dynamic patterns. In peripheral vision, pure vertical motion form constraints (DeYoe & Van Essen, 1988; Marr, (the moving-barber-pole illusion [MBPI]) is perceived for a 1982). Indeed, there have been successful motion models wide range of conditions. In foveal vision, the MBPI is that do not concern form information at all, yet manage observed, but only when the higher-order modulator motion is masked. Theories to explain the BPI make to explain a wide range of motion perception phenom- indiscriminable predictions in a standard barber-pole ena (Adelson & Bergen, 1985; Lu & Sperling, 1995; Van display. But, in moving-barber-pole stimuli, the motion Santen & Sperling, 1984, 1985; Watson & Ahumada, directions of features (e.g., end stops) of the first-order 1985; Wilson, Ferrera, & Yo, 1992). However, growing carrier and of the higher-order modulator are all different evidence now suggests that form information can from the MBPI. High temporal frequency stimuli viewed influence the extraction of motion information in peripherally greatly reduce the effectiveness of higher- various ways. (Badcock, McKendrick, & Ma-Wyatt, order motion mechanisms and, ideally, isolate a single 2003; Burr & Ross, 2002; Edwards & Crane, 2007; mechanism responsible for the MBPI. A three-stage motion-path integration mechanism that (a) computes Geisler, 1999; Geisler, Albrecht, Crane, & Stern, 2001; local motion energies, (b) integrates them for a limited time Kourtzi & Kanwisher, 2000; Krekelberg, Dannenberg, period along various spatial paths, and (c) selects the path Hoffmann, Bremmer, & Ross, 2003; Mather, Pavan, with the greatest motion energy, quantitatively accounts Bellacosa, & Casco, 2012; Pavan et al., 2011; Pavan, for these high-frequency data. The MBPI model also Marotti, & Mather, 2013; Ross, Badcock, & Hayes, accounts for the perceived motion-direction in peripherally 2000). The influence of form on motion perception viewed moving-barber-pole stimuli that do and do not might occur at several different motion processing exhibit the MBPI over the entire range of modulator (0–10 stages, including at a local motion sensing stage such as Hz) and carrier (2.5–10 Hz) temporal frequencies tested. V1 (Geisler et al., 2001), at a motion integration stage such as MT (Mather et al., 2012), and even at higher computational levels (Pavan et al., 2013; see Mather, Introduction Pavan, Marotti, Campana, & Casco, 2013, for a review). Form influences motion perception The barber-pole illusion It is widely accepted that the visual cortex contains Although computational theories of the influence of two segregated functional streams of processing. One form on motion perception have been formulated only Citation: Sun, P., Chubb, C., Sperlin, G. (2014). A moving-barber-pole illusion. Journal of Vision, 14(5):1, 1–27, http://www. journalofvision.org/content/14/5/1, doi:10.1167/14.5.1. doi: 10.1167/14.5.1 Received October 31, 2013; published May 1, 2014 ISSN 1534-7362 Ó 2014 ARVO Journal of Vision (2014) 14(5):1, 1–27 Sun, Chubb, & Sperling 2 Figure 1. Three ways of producing classical barber-pole displays viewed through a circular window. (The red annulus surrounding the window is actually opaque and contiguous with the background; it is illustrated as being partially transparent to reveal how the displays are created.) (a) View a real barber pole behind a circular window. The cylinder on which the stripes are painted rotates around a vertical axis. Although the real motion in the image plane is purely horizontal, the stripes appear to move vertically upwards. (b) Either on a computer monitor or with real materials, produce a rectangular aperture (the modulator) with the long side oriented vertically. Behind the rectangular aperture, move a grating (the carrier) diagonally upward to the right. Although the real motion is upward to the right, the direction of apparent motion within the aperture is upward, as in (a). (c) On a piece of white paper, produce an image of a barber pole as illustrated, i.e., a snapshot of a barber pole. Drag the snapshot vertically upwards. When a dynamic stimulus can be produced simply by moving a (nondeforming) snapshot of the stimulus, it is called a rigid translation. quite recently (e.g., Grossberg, Mingolla, & Viswana- BPI is determined by the motion of bar terminators (or than, 2001), the phenomena caused by form-motion end-stops) at the modulator boundary (Castet, Char- interaction were noted long ago. Perhaps the earliest ton, & Dufour, 1999; Fisher & Zanker, 2001; Kooi, and best-known phenomenon is the barber-pole 1993; Lide´n & Mingolla, 1998; Lorenceau et al., 1993; illusion (BPI; Wallach, 1935), in which a cylinder is Shimojo, Silverman, & Nakayama, 1989). In the end- painted with diagonal black and white stripes. When stop theories, the detection of the end-stop motion is the cylinder rotates about its axis, the stripes appear to implemented by a designated mechanism often referred move parallel to the axis (Figure 1a). In experimental as the end-stop mechanism. Motion produced by the settings, the barber-pole display is usually produced by end-stop mechanism then combines with that comput- multiplying a moving grating (the carrier) by a ed by the conventional motion mechanisms to produce rectangular modulator, so that the motion stimulus is the BPI (Tsui, Hunter, Born, & Pack, 2010). The end- enclosed within the rectangular region (Figure 1b). Like stop theory explains the BPI within a purely motion the illusion produced by a real barber pole, the (dorsal) pathway (Pack, Gartland, & Born, 2004; Pack, apparent motion direction of the translating bars is Livingstone, Duffy, & Born, 2003) and does not require parallel to the long axis of the modulator. The illusion subsequent crosstalk between form and motion pro- cannot be explained by any motion models that do not cessing streams (Mather et al., 2013). explicitly consider the shape of the spatial structure enclosing the motion signal. To account for the form- motion interaction that is implicit in the BPI would Motion-streak theories of the BPI require further elaboration of the existing motion Contrary to end-stop explanations, the BPI retains theories. We now consider previously proposed theo- when end-stop motions are in directions different from ries of form-motion interaction. the modulator’s elongated orientation (Beutter, Mulli- gan, & Stone, 1996; Castet & Wuerger, 1997). Also, the BPI is weakened substantially when the overall end-stop End-stop theories of the BPI motions are still along the modulator’s elongated Obviously, different theories on the BPI can lead to orientation but the modulator boundary contains different implications of the underlying neural mecha- irregular details (Badcock et al., 2003). Based on these nisms and different implications of the visual process- results, Badcock et al. (2003) proposed that the ing stages where the form-motion interaction takes modulator boundary acted like the motion streak in place. Perhaps the current predominant view is that the motion-streak models (e.g., Geisler, 1999) to produce the Journal of Vision (2014) 14(5):1, 1–27 Sun, Chubb, & Sperling 3 the features is the rigid direction of the dynamic pattern. Obviously, only a tiny subset of dynamic patterns has a unique rigid direction. A barber-pole stimulus like the one shown in Figure 1b viewed through a circular window produces exactly the same dynamic stimulus as is produced by dragging a snapshot of the same stimulus upward behind the circular window (Figure 1c). That is, the rigid direction of a barber-pole stimulus is the same as the modulator’s elongated orientation, as long as the modulator extends beyond the circular aperture. A number of different algorithms have been pro- posed to extract the rigid direction of a moving image. Figure 2. Cartoon illustration of the moving-barber-pole display. Therefore, motion models with the components that (a) A realistic scenario in which a moving truck carries three implement these algorithms (Adelson & Movshon, active barber poles. The truck and the carrier gratings inside 1982; Heeger, 1987;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interactions Between Motion and Form Processing in the Human Visual System
    REVIEW ARTICLE published: 20 May 2013 COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE doi: 10.3389/fncom.2013.00065 Interactions between motion and form processing in the human visual system George Mather 1*, Andrea Pavan 2, Rosilari Bellacosa Marotti 3, Gianluca Campana 3 and Clara Casco 3 1 School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK 2 Institut für Psychologie, Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany 3 Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy Edited by: The predominant view of motion and form processing in the human visual system Timothy Ledgeway, University of assumes that these two attributes are handled by separate and independent modules. Nottingham, UK Motion processing involves filtering by direction-selective sensors, followed by integration Reviewed by: to solve the aperture problem. Form processing involves filtering by orientation-selective Cees Van Leeuwen, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium and size-selective receptive fields, followed by integration to encode object shape. It has Mark Edwards, Australian National long been known that motion signals can influence form processing in the well-known University, Australia Gestalt principle of common fate; texture elements which share a common motion *Correspondence: property are grouped into a single contour or texture region. However, recent research George Mather, School of in psychophysics and neuroscience indicates that the influence of form signals on Psychology, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK. motion processing is more extensive than previously thought. First, the salience and e-mail: [email protected] apparent direction of moving lines depends on how the local orientation and direction of motion combine to match the receptive field properties of motion-selective neurons.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Models of Motion Integration, Segmentation, and Probabilistic Decision-Making
    Chapter 13 Neural Models of Motion Integration, Segmentation, and Probabilistic Decision-Making Stephen Grossberg Abstract What brain mechanisms carry out motion integration and segmentation processes that compute unambiguous global motion percepts from ambiguous local motion signals? Consider, for example, a deer running at variable speeds behind forest cover. The forest cover is an occluder that creates apertures through which fragments of the deer’s motion signals are intermittently experienced. The brain coherently groups these fragments into a trackable percept of the deer and its trajectory. Form and motion processes are needed to accomplish this using feedforward and feedback interactions both within and across cortical processing streams. All the cortical areas V1, V2, MT, and MST are involved in these interac- tions. Figure-ground processes in the form stream through V2, such as the separa- tion of occluding boundaries of the forest cover from boundaries of the deer, select the motion signals which determine global object motion percepts in the motion stream through MT. Sparse, but unambiguous, feature tracking signals are ampli- fied before they propagate across position and are integrated with far more numer- ous ambiguous motion signals. Figure-ground and integration processes together determine the global percept. A neural model predicts the processing stages that embody these form and motion interactions. Model concepts and data are sum- marized about motion grouping across apertures in response to a wide variety of displays, and probabilistic decision making in parietal cortex in response to random dot displays. S. Grossberg (*) Department of Cognitive and Neural Systems, Center for Adaptive Systems, Center of Excellence for Learning in Education, Science and Technology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] U.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Optical Illusion - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Optical illusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Try Beta Log in / create account article discussion edit this page history [Hide] Wikipedia is there when you need it — now it needs you. $0.6M USD $7.5M USD Donate Now navigation Optical illusion Main page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Contents Featured content This article is about visual perception. See Optical Illusion (album) for Current events information about the Time Requiem album. Random article An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by search visually perceived images that differ from objective reality. The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types: literal optical illusions that create images that are interaction different from the objects that make them, physiological ones that are the An optical illusion. The square A About Wikipedia effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type is exactly the same shade of grey Community portal (brightness, tilt, color, movement), and cognitive illusions where the eye as square B. See Same color Recent changes and brain make unconscious inferences. illusion Contact Wikipedia Donate to Wikipedia Contents [hide] Help 1 Physiological illusions toolbox 2 Cognitive illusions 3 Explanation of cognitive illusions What links here 3.1 Perceptual organization Related changes 3.2 Depth and motion perception Upload file Special pages 3.3 Color and brightness
    [Show full text]
  • From Moving Contours to Object Motion: Functional Networks for Visual Form/Motion Processing
    Chapter 1 From Moving Contours to Object Motion: Functional Networks for Visual Form/Motion Processing Jean Lorenceau Abstract Recovering visual object motion, an essential function for living organisms to survive, remains a matter of experimental work aiming at understanding how the eye–brain system overcomes ambiguities and uncertainties, some intimately related to the sampling of the retinal image by neurons with spatially restricted receptive fields. Over the years, perceptual and electrophysiological recordings during active vision of a variety of motion patterns, together with modeling efforts, have partially uncovered the dynamics of the functional cortical networks underlying motion integration, segmentation and selection. In the following chapter, I shall review a subset of the large amount of available experimental data, and attempt to offer a comprehensive view of the building up of the unitary perception of moving forms. 1.1 Introduction An oriented slit of moving light, a microelectrode and an amplifier! Such were Hubel and Wiesel’s scalpel used during the 1960s (1959–1968) to uncover the properties of the visual brain of cat and monkey. A very simple visual stimulus indeed which, coupled with electrophysiological techniques, nevertheless allowed the analysis of many fundamental aspects of the functional architecture of primary visual cortex in mammals: distribution of orientation and direction selective neurons in layers, columns and hyper columns, discovery of simple, complex and hyper complex cells, distribution of ocular dominance bands, retinotopic organization of striate visual areas, etc. J. Lorenceau (*) Equipe Cogimage, UPMC Univ Paris 06, CNRS UMR 7225, Inserm UMR_S 975, CRICM 47 boulevard de l’Hôpital, Paris, F-75013, France e-mail: [email protected] U.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion Perception and Mid-Level Vision
    Motion Perception and Mid-Level Vision Josh McDermott and Edward H. Adelson Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Science, MIT Note: the phenomena described in this chapter are very difficult to understand without viewing the moving stimuli. The reader is urged to view the demos when reading the chapter, at: http://koffka.mit.edu/~kanile/master.html 1 Like many aspects of vision, motion perception begins with a massive array of local measurements performed by neurons in area V1. Each receptive field covers a small piece of the visual world, and as a result suffers from an ambiguity known as the aperture problem, illustrated in Figure 1. A moving contour, locally observed, is consistent with a family of possible motions (Wallach, 1935; Adelson and Movshon, 1982). This ambiguity is geometric in origin - motion parallel to the contour cannot be detected, as changes to this component of the motion do not change the images observed through the aperture. Only the component of the velocity orthogonal to the contour orientation can be measured, and as a result the actual velocity could be any of an infinite family of motions lying along a line in velocity space, as indicated in Figure 1. This ambiguity depends on the contour in question being straight, but smoothly curved contours are approximately straight when viewed locally, and the aperture problem is thus widespread. The upshot is that most local measurements made in the early stages of vision constrain object velocities but do not narrow them down to a single value; further analysis is necessary to yield the motions that we perceive.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion Perception What You Should Be Reading…
    What you should be reading… Motion Perception • For today: Chapter 9 (on motion) • For Thursday: Chapter 6 pp 219-242, on object recognition Josh McDermott • For Tuesday 4/13: Ch 6 pp 243-246, on 9.35 attention April 6, 2004 One way to think about detecting image motion: PROBLEM: Local motion detectors cannot determine true direction of motion: (Image removed due to copyright considerations.) (Image removed due to copyright considerations.) Detector will respond as long as perpendicular component of velocity matches the space-time offset. These local computations are incapable of determining Each detector gives a constraint line in velocity space, so if the specific motion direction and speed of a 2D signal. two are combined, the true velocity can be derived from the intersection of the two lines: They can only “see” the component at their orientation. How, then, does the visual system detect the motion of 2D features? (Image removed due to copyright considerations.) (Image removed due to copyright considerations.) The local detectors give a constraint line in velocity space… 1 Suggests a two stage model of motion processing: First, the stimulus is decomposed into a set of 1D components Neurons in area V1 respond (“wavelet”, Gabor, or fourier components). only to 1D motion. These 1D components are combined during a subsequent stage of processing using a form of intersection of constraints. This implies that 2D features (like points, corners, etc.) are derived. (Image removed due to copyright consideration.) Physiological experiments have since confirmed that this occurs… Area MT (V5) has neurons that respond to 2D motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Microstimulation of the Superior Colliculus Focuses Attention Without Moving the Eyes
    Microstimulation of the superior colliculus focuses attention without moving the eyes James R. Mu¨ ller*†, Marios G. Philiastides‡§, and William T. Newsome* *Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, and §Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 This contribution is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members of the National Academy of Sciences elected on May 2, 2000. Contributed by William T. Newsome, November 8, 2004 The superior colliculus (SC) is part of a network of brain areas that have shown that microstimulation can bias perceptual choices in directs saccadic eye movements, overtly shifting both gaze and discrimination tasks (20–22) or serve as a substitute for a attention from position to position, in space. Here, we seek direct stimulus that is not actually present (23). But no manipulation of evidence that the SC also contributes to the control of covert this sort has improved an animal’s ability to discern what is spatial attention, a process that focuses attention on a region of actually present in the sensory world. space different from the point of gaze. While requiring monkeys to To explore this important phenomenon further, we adopted keep their gaze fixed, we tested whether microstimulation of a the general approach of Moore and Fallah to test whether specific location in the SC spatial map would enhance visual electrical stimulation of the SC, like that of the FEF, exerts a performance at the corresponding region of space, a diagnostic causal influence on covert attention. We sought to determine measure of covert attention.
    [Show full text]
  • Motion Andy Rider [email protected]
    Motion Andy Rider [email protected] Motion aftereffect • If you stare at something that contains motion, and then look at something that’s stationary, you perceive illusory motion in the opposite direction First described by Aristotle Then by Lucretius (384–322 BC) (99–55 BC) 1 Motion aftereffect Addams, R. (1834). An account of a peculiar optical phænomenon seen after having looked at a moving body. London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 5, 373–4. Fall of Foyers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MK9qQ_ApHQ Motion aftereffect Addams, R. (1834). An account of a peculiar optical phænomenon seen after having looked at a moving body. London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 5, 373–4. Fall of Foyers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MK9qQ_ApHQ 2 Motion aftereffect Storm Illusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVXHzAWS60 Motion aftereffect Storm Illusion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVXHzAWS60 3 Motion aftereffect Wohlgemuth (1911) Direction-selective cells in visual cortex Hubel & Wiesel (1959): Neuron in cat primary visual cortex (V1) Hubel & Wiesel (1968): Neuron in monkey primary visual cortex (V1) 4 Adaptation of direction-selective neurons Vautin & Berkley (1977): Neuron in cat primary visual cortex (V1) Average response Average Blank screen Pattern moving Blank screen Time in preferred direction • Presentation of motion with neuron’s preferred direction causes substantial adaptation Adaptation of direction-selective neurons Vautin & Berkley (1977): Neuron in cat primary visual
    [Show full text]
  • The Visual World As Illusion the Ones We Know and the Ones We Don’T
    90 Chapter 7 The Visual World as Illusion The Ones We Know and the Ones We Don’t Stephen Grossberg EXPECTATION, IMAGINATION, AND ILLUSION that the line is there, but it is invisible, or not seen. Such a percept is called amodal in this chapter. A modal percept When you open your eyes in the morning, you usually see is one that does carry some visible brightness or color dif- what you expect to see. Often it will be your bedroom, with ference. This use of the term amodal generalizes the more things where you left them before you went to sleep. What if traditional use by authors such as Albert Michotte, Gabio you opened your eyes and unexpectedly found yourself in a Metelli, and Gaetano Kanizsa because the mechanistic steaming tropical jungle? Why do we have expectations about analysis of how boundaries and surfaces interact, which is what is about to happen to us? Why do we get surprised summarized later in this chapter, supports a more general when something unexpected happens to us? More generally, terminology in which perceptual boundaries are formed why are we Intentional Beings who are always projecting without any corresponding visible surface qualia. our expectations into the future? How does having such ex- Simple images like this turn our naive views about the pectations help us to fantasize and plan events that have not function of seeing upside down. For example, one introspec- yet occurred? Without this ability, all creative thought would tively appealing answer to the question “Why do we see?” is be impossible, and we could not imagine different possible that “We see things in order to recognize them.” But we can futures for ourselves or our hopes and fears for them.
    [Show full text]
  • Fractional-Order Information in the Visual Control of Locomotor Interception Reinoud J
    Fractional-Order Information in the Visual Control of Locomotor Interception Reinoud J. Bootsma, Rémy Casanova, Frank T. J. M. Zaal To cite this version: Reinoud J. Bootsma, Rémy Casanova, Frank T. J. M. Zaal. Fractional-Order Information in the Visual Control of Locomotor Interception. Perception, SAGE Publications, 2019, 48 (1_suppl), pp.187-187. 10.1177/0301006618824879. hal-02185336 HAL Id: hal-02185336 https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02185336 Submitted on 16 Jul 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Perception 2019, Vol. 48(S1) 1–233 ! The Author(s) 2019 41st European Conference on Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions Visual Perception (ECVP) DOI: 10.1177/0301006618824879 2018 Trieste journals.sagepub.com/home/pec Welcome Address The 41st European Conference on Visual Perception (ECVP) took place in Trieste (Italy), from August 26 to 30, 2018. This edition was dedicated to the memory of our esteemed colleague and friend Tom Troscianko, with an emotional Memorial lecture in his honour held by Peter Thompson during the opening ceremony. The conference saw the participation of over 900 fellow vision scientists coming from all around the world; the vast majority of them actively participated, allowing us to offer an outstanding scientific program.
    [Show full text]
  • Bifurcation Study of a Neural Field Competition Model with an Application to Perceptual Switching in Motion Integration
    J Comput Neurosci DOI 10.1007/s10827-013-0465-5 Bifurcation study of a neural field competition model with an application to perceptual switching in motion integration J. Rankin · A. I. Meso · G. S. Masson · O. Faugeras · P. Kornprobst Received: 25 January 2013 / Revised: 19 May 2013 / Accepted: 20 May 2013 © The Author(s) 2013. This article is published with open access at SpringerLink.com Abstract Perceptual multistability is a phenomenon in broad range of perceptual competition problems in which which alternate interpretations of a fixed stimulus are per- spatial interactions play a role. ceived intermittently. Although correlates between activity in specific cortical areas and perception have been found, Keywords Multistability · Competition · Perception · the complex patterns of activity and the underlying mecha- Neural fields · Bifurcation · Motion nisms that gate multistable perception are little understood. Here, we present a neural field competition model in which competing states are represented in a continuous feature 1 Introduction space. Bifurcation analysis is used to describe the differ- ent types of complex spatio-temporal dynamics produced Perception can evolve dynamically for fixed sensory inputs by the model in terms of several parameters and for differ- and so-called multistable stimuli have been the attention ent inputs. The dynamics of the model was then compared of much recent experimental and computational investiga- to human perception investigated psychophysically during tion. The focus of many modelling studies has been to long presentations of an ambiguous, multistable motion pat- reproduce the switching behaviour observed in psychophys- tern known as the barberpole illusion. In order to do this, ical experiment and provide insight into the underlying the model is operated in a parameter range where known mechanisms (Laing and Chow 2002; Freeman 2005; Kim physiological response properties are reproduced whilst also et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Models and Systems for Gaze Guidance
    Aus dem Institut fur¨ Neuro- und Bioinformatik der Universitat¨ zu Lubeck¨ Direktor: Univ.-Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Thomas Martinetz Computational models and systems for gaze guidance Inauguraldissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwurde¨ der Universitat¨ zu Lubeck¨ – Aus der Technisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultat¨ – vorgelegt von Michael Dorr aus Hamburg Lubeck¨ 2009 Erster Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Erhardt Barth Zweiter Berichterstatter: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Heiko Neumann Tag der mundlichen¨ Prufung:¨ 23. April 2010 Zum Druck genehmigt: Lubeck,¨ den 26. April 2010 ii Contents Acknowledgements iv Zusammenfassung v I Introduction and basics 1 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Thesis organization . 6 1.2 Previous publications . 7 2 Basics 9 2.1 Image processing basics . 10 2.2 Spectra of spatio-temporal natural scenes . 11 2.3 Gaussian multiresolution pyramids . 13 2.4 Laplacian multiresolution pyramids . 16 2.5 Spatio-temporal “natural” noise . 20 2.6 Movie blending . 21 2.7 Geometry of image sequences . 23 2.8 Geometrical invariants . 26 2.9 Multispectral image sequences . 26 2.10 Orientation estimation . 27 2.11 Motion estimation . 28 2.12 Generalized structure tensor . 31 2.13 Support vector machines . 33 2.14 Human vision basics . 34 2.15 Eye movements . 40 II Models 43 3 Eye movements on natural videos 47 3.1 Previous work . 47 3.2 Our work . 48 3.3 Methods . 50 3.4 Results . 60 3.5 Discussion . 68 3.6 Chapter conclusion . 72 iii CONTENTS 4 Prediction of eye movements 75 4.1 Bottom-up and top-down eye guidance . 76 4.2 Saccade target selection based on low-level features at fixation .
    [Show full text]