Slant-tilt: The visual encoding of surface orientation

A specific form for the internal representation of local surface orientation is proposed, which is similar to Gibson's (1950) “amount and direction of slant”. Slant amount is usually quantifed by the angle σ between the surface normal and the line of sight (0°≦σ≦90°). Slant direction corresponds to the direction of the gradient of distance from the viewer to the surface, and may be defined by the image direction τ to which the surface normal would project (0°≦τ≦360°). Since the direction of slant is specified by the tilt of the projected surface normal, it is referred to as surface tilt (Stevens, 1979; Marr, 1982). The two degrees of freedom of orientation are therefore quantified by slant, an angle measured perpendicular to the image plane, and tilt, an angle measured in the image plane. The slanttilt form provides several computational advantages relative to some other proposals and is consistent with various psychological phenomena. Slant might be encoded by various means, e.g. by the cosine of the angle, by the tangent, or linearly by the angle itself. Experimental results are reported that suggest that slant is encoded by an internal parameter that varies linearly with slant angle, with resolution of roughly one part in 100. Thus we propose that surface orientation is encoded in human vision by two quantities, one varying linearly with slant angle, the other varying linearly with tilt angle.

[1]  R. Weale Vision. A Computational Investigation Into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. David Marr , 1983 .

[2]  D Marr,et al.  Early processing of visual information. , 1976, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[3]  H. Flock Optical texture and linear perspective as stimuli for slant perception. , 1965, Psychological review.

[4]  W. H. S. Monok VISUAL SPACE-PERCEPTIONS IN THE DARK , 1884 .

[5]  William M. Youngs The influence of perspective and disparity cues on the perception of slant , 1976, Vision Research.

[6]  Albert Yonas,et al.  Mechanisms underlying the slant aftereffect , 1977 .

[7]  Donald D. Hoffman Inferring local surface orientation from motion fields. , 1982, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[8]  W. H. Ittelson Visual space perception , 1961 .

[9]  F. Attneave,et al.  The determination of perceived tridimensional orientation by minimum criteria , 1969 .

[10]  P. Kaiser,et al.  Perceived shape and its dependency on perceived slant. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  K. Prazdny,et al.  Egomotion and relative depth map from optical flow , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[12]  H. C. Longuet-Higgins,et al.  The interpretation of a moving retinal image , 1980, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[13]  A. Macworth Interpreting pictures of polyhedral scenes , 1973 .

[14]  David Marr,et al.  Representing Visual Information , 1977 .

[15]  J. Gibson The Senses Considered As Perceptual Systems , 1967 .

[16]  J. Gibson,et al.  The Negative After-Effect of the Perception of a Surface Slanted in the Third Dimension , 1959 .

[17]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[18]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Local structure of movement parallax of the plane , 1976 .

[19]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[20]  D A Gordon,et al.  Static and dynamic visul fields in human space perception. , 1965, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[21]  Kent A. Stevens,et al.  The Visual Interpretation of Surface Contours , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[22]  W. Clark,et al.  The interaction of surface texture, outline gradient, and ground in the perception of slant. , 1956, Canadian journal of psychology.

[23]  Smith Ah,et al.  INTERACTION OF FORM AND EXPOSURE TIME IN THE PERCEPTION OF SLANT. , 1965 .

[24]  R. Olson Slant judgments from static and rotating trapezoids correspond to rules of perspective geometry , 1974 .

[25]  Marc H. Bornstein,et al.  A.W. Melton E. Martin , 1975, Brain and Language.

[26]  J. Gibson The perception of visual surfaces. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[27]  A. L. Kraft,et al.  The effect of pattern and texture gradient on slant and shape judgments , 1967 .

[28]  A. Smith,et al.  Interaction of Form and Exposure Time in the Perception of Slant , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[29]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  From Understanding Computation to Understanding Neural Circuitry , 1976 .

[30]  D Marr,et al.  Theory of edge detection , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[31]  Hermann von Helmholtz,et al.  Treatise on Physiological Optics , 1962 .

[32]  R. Gregory The intelligent eye , 1970 .

[33]  K. A. Stevens Surface tilt (the direction of slant): A neglected psychophysical variable , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Andrew P. Witkin,et al.  Recovering Surface Shape and Orientation from Texture , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[35]  W. Kohler,et al.  Figural after-effects in the third dimensions of visual space. , 1947, The American journal of psychology.

[36]  Berthold K. P. Horn Obtaining shape from shading information , 1989 .

[37]  K. A. Stevens The information content of texture gradients , 1981, Biological Cybernetics.

[38]  S. Ullman,et al.  The interpretation of visual motion , 1977 .

[39]  Alan K. Mackworth Interpreting Pictures of Polyhedral Scenes , 1973, IJCAI.

[40]  J M Foley,et al.  The size-distance relation and intrinsic geometry of visual space: implications for processing. , 1972, Vision research.

[41]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Optical Velocity Patterns, Velocity-Sensitive Neurons, and Space Perception: A Hypothesis , 1974, Perception.

[42]  H. Flock,et al.  Slant judgments of single rectangles at a slant , 1967 .