Similarity and Features of Natural Textures

In 3 experiments the type of model that is best for conceptualizing the attentive similarity of natural textures was investigated. Different groups of participants placed pictures into groups however they wished, described the resulting clusters and multidimensional scaling dimensions, identified the objects or surfaces depicted in the pictures, and ranked the pictures along several hypothesized attribute-based dimensions. Results indicate that similarity is context dependent, that natural textures seem to be organized according to family resemblances, and that a dimensional model is inappropriate. These outcomes suggest that models of preattentive segregation and attentive cognition may be incommensurable.

[1]  HighWire Press.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

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

[3]  W. Torgerson,et al.  Multidimensional scaling of similarity , 1965, Psychometrika.

[4]  Phil Brodatz,et al.  Textures: A Photographic Album for Artists and Designers , 1966 .

[5]  J. Beck.  Effect of orientation and of shape similarity on perceptual grouping , 1966 .

[6]  J. Beck.  Perceptual grouping produced by line figures , 1967 .

[7]  L. Guttman.  A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points , 1968 .

[8]  F. Attneave,et al.  What Variables Produce Similarity Grouping , 1970 .

[9]  J. Beck.  Similarity grouping and peripheral discriminability under uncertainty. , 1972, The American journal of psychology.

[10]  B Julesz,et al.  Experiments in the visual perception of texture. , 1975, Scientific American.

[11]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[12]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

[13]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[14]  Hideyuki Tamura,et al.  Textural Features Corresponding to Visual Perception , 1978, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[15]  Amos Tversky,et al.  Studies of similarity , 1978 .

[16]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and Performance VI , 1978 .

[17]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[18]  R.M. Haralick,et al.  Statistical and structural approaches to texture , 1979, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[19]  J. Gibson.  The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[20]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  B. Julesz.  Spatial nonlinearities in the instantaneous perception of textures with identical power spectra. , 1980, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[22]  B. Julesz.  Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions , 1981, Nature.

[23]  L. O. Harvey,et al.  Internal representation of visual texture as the basis for the judgment of similarity. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  A. Treisman,et al.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[26]  J. Beck.  Organization and representation in perception , 1982 .

[27]  Songde Ma,et al.  Sequential synthesis of natural textures , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[28]  D. Medin,et al.  The role of theories in conceptual coherence. , 1985, Psychological review.

[29]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Preattentive processing in vision , 1985, Computer Vision Graphics and Image Processing.

[30]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  Texture analysis Anno 1983 , 1985, Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process..

[31]  G. Lakoff.  Cognitive models and prototype theory. , 1987 .

[32]  Terry Caelli,et al.  An adaptive computational model for texture segmentation , 1988, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[33]  E. Adelson,et al.  Early vision and texture perception , 1988, Nature.

[34]  U. Neisser.  Concepts and Conceptual Development: Ecological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization , 1989 .

[35]  Robert King,et al.  Textural features corresponding to textural properties , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[36]  J. Bergen,et al.  Texture segregation and orientation gradient , 1991, Vision Research.

[37]  Edward A. Essock,et al.  1 An Essay on Texture: The Extraction of Stimulus Structure from the Visual Image , 1992 .

[38]  H. Nothdurft.  Feature analysis and the role of similarity in preattentive vision , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  B. Burns.  Percepts, concepts, and categories : the representation and processing of information , 1992 .

[40]  Mark Holliins,et al.  Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: A multidimensional scaling analysis , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[41]  A. Ravishankar Rao,et al.  Identifying High Level Features of Texture Perception , 1993, CVGIP Graph. Model. Image Process..

[42]  S. Palmer,et al.  Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  T. Papathomas.  Early vision and beyond , 1995 .

[44]  Roger J. Watt.  Some speculations on the role of texture processing in visual perception , 1995 .

[45]  P. Schyns,et al.  Categories and percepts: a bi-directionnal framework for categorization , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[46]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The development of features in object concepts , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.