Local reliability weighting explains identification of partially masked objects in natural images

A fundamental natural visual task is the identification of specific target objects in the environments that surround us. It has long been known that some properties of the background have strong effects on target visibility. The most well-known properties are the luminance, contrast, and similarity of the background to the target. In previous studies, we found that these properties have highly lawful effects on detection in natural backgrounds. However, there is another important factor affecting detection in natural backgrounds that has received little or no attention in the masking literature, which has been concerned with detection in simpler backgrounds. Namely, in natural backgrounds the properties of the background often vary under the target, and hence some parts of the target are masked more than others. We began studying this factor, which we call the “partial masking factor,” by measuring detection thresholds in backgrounds of contrast-modulated white noise that was constructed so that the standard template-matching (TM) observer performs equally well whether or not the noise contrast modulates in the target region. If noise contrast is uniform in the target region, then this TM observer is the Bayesian optimal observer. However, when the noise contrast modulates then the Bayesian optimal observer weights the template at each pixel location by the estimated reliability at that location. We find that human performance for modulated noise backgrounds is predicted by this reliability-weighted TM (RTM) observer. More surprisingly, we find that human performance for natural backgrounds is also predicted by the RTM observer.

[1]  J. Movshon,et al.  Selectivity and spatial distribution of signals from the receptive field surround in macaque V1 neurons. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  M. Carandini,et al.  Normalization as a canonical neural computation , 2011, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[3]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detectability with two noise components: anomalous masking effects. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[4]  Mark W. Becker,et al.  Revisiting individual differences in the time course of binocular rivalry. , 2018, Journal of vision.

[5]  W. Geisler,et al.  Contributions of ideal observer theory to vision research , 2011, Vision Research.

[6]  Sheila S. Hemami,et al.  A Patch-Based Structural Masking Model with an Application to Compression , 2009, EURASIP J. Image Video Process..

[7]  H. Wilson,et al.  Spatial frequency tuning of orientation selective units estimated by oblique masking , 1983, Vision Research.

[8]  D. Heeger Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex , 1992, Visual Neuroscience.

[9]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Adaptive detection mechanisms in globally statistically nonstationary-oriented noise. , 2006, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[10]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[11]  Kedarnath P Vilankar,et al.  Local masking in natural images: a database and analysis. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[12]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Ideal observer for detection of occluding targets in natural scenes in the fovea and periphery. , 2018 .

[13]  H H Barrett,et al.  Effect of random background inhomogeneity on observer detection performance. , 1992, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[14]  G. Legge,et al.  Contrast discrimination in noise. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[15]  Melchi M. Michel,et al.  Intrinsic position uncertainty explains detection and localization performance in peripheral vision. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[16]  D G Pelli,et al.  Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[17]  B. Dosher,et al.  Characterizing observers using external noise and observer models: assessing internal representations with external noise. , 2008, Psychological review.

[18]  Wilson S Geisler,et al.  Effects of Target Amplitude Uncertainty, Background Contrast Uncertainty, and Prior Probability Are Predicted by the Normalized Template-Matching Observer , 2019, Journal of Vision.

[19]  W. Geisler,et al.  Constrained sampling experiments reveal principles of detection in natural scenes , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  Athanasios Papoulis,et al.  Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes , 1965 .

[21]  W. Geisler,et al.  Retina-V1 model of detectability across the visual field. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[22]  O. Schwartz,et al.  Flexible Gating of Contextual Influences in Natural Vision , 2015, Nature Neuroscience.

[23]  Carlos Dorronsoro,et al.  Separable effects of similarity and contrast on detection in natural backgrounds , 2018, Journal of Vision.

[24]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[25]  D. Levi Crowding—An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review , 2008, Vision Research.

[26]  P F Judy,et al.  Detection of noisy visual targets: Models for the effects of spatial uncertainty and signal-to-noise ratio , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  H. Barrett,et al.  Effect of noise correlation on detectability of disk signals in medical imaging. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[28]  F. Campbell,et al.  Orientational selectivity of the human visual system , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[29]  B. Julesz,et al.  Spatial-frequency masking in vision: critical bands and spread of masking. , 1972, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[30]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Decision-variable correlation , 2018, Journal of vision.

[31]  J A Solomon,et al.  Model of visual contrast gain control and pattern masking. , 1997, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[32]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Efficiency of human visual signal discrimination. , 1981, Science.

[33]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Contrast masking in human vision. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[34]  Robert A. Frazor,et al.  Independence of luminance and contrast in natural scenes and in the early visual system , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[35]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Optimal eye movement strategies in visual search , 2005, Nature.

[36]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[37]  C. G. Mueller,et al.  FREQUENCY OF SEEING FUNCTIONS FOR INTENSITY DISCRIMINATION AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF ADAPTING INTENSITY , 1951, The Journal of general physiology.

[38]  D. Hood,et al.  Lower-level visual processing and models of light adaptation. , 1998, Annual review of psychology.

[39]  Arthur Burgess Signal Detection Theory: A Brief History , 2018 .

[40]  J Nachmias,et al.  Letter: Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection. , 1974, Vision research.

[41]  D. G. Albrecht,et al.  Motion selectivity and the contrast-response function of simple cells in the visual cortex , 1991, Visual Neuroscience.