Perception of differences in natural-image stimuli: Why is peripheral viewing poorer than foveal?

Visual Difference Predictor (VDP) models have played a key role in digital image applications such as the development of image quality metrics. However, little attention has been paid to their applicability to peripheral vision. Central (i.e., foveal) vision is extremely sensitive for the contrast detection of simple stimuli such as sinusoidal gratings, but peripheral vision is less sensitive. Furthermore, crowding is a well-documented phenomenon whereby differences in suprathreshold peripherally viewed target objects (such as individual letters or patches of sinusoidal grating) become more difficult to discriminate when surrounded by other objects (flankers). We examine three factors that might influence the degree of crowding with natural-scene stimuli (cropped from photographs of natural scenes): (1) location in the visual field, (2) distance between target and flankers, and (3) flanker-target similarity. We ask how these factors affect crowding in a suprathreshold discrimination experiment where observers rate the perceived differences between two sequentially presented target patches of natural images. The targets might differ in the shape, size, arrangement, or color of items in the scenes. Changes in uncrowded peripheral targets are perceived to be less than for the same changes viewed foveally. Consistent with previous research on simple stimuli, we find that crowding in the periphery (but not in the fovea) reduces the magnitudes of perceived changes even further, especially when the flankers are closer and more similar to the target. We have tested VDP models based on the response behavior of neurons in visual cortex and the inhibitory interactions between them. The models do not explain the lower ratings for peripherally viewed changes even when the lower peripheral contrast sensitivity was accounted for; nor could they explain the effects of crowding, which others have suggested might arise from errors in the spatial localization of features in the peripheral image. This suggests that conventional VDP models do not port well to peripheral vision.

[1]  Anthony A. Wasilewski,et al.  Robust, sensor-independent target detection and recognition based on computational models of human vision , 1998 .

[2]  John H. R. Maunsell,et al.  The visual field representation in striate cortex of the macaque monkey: Asymmetries, anisotropies, and individual variability , 1984, Vision Research.

[3]  L. Rosenblum,et al.  Look who's Talking: Recognizing Friends from Visible Articulation , 2007, Perception.

[4]  J. Movshon,et al.  Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity of neurones in areas 17 and 18 of the cat's visual cortex. , 1978, The Journal of physiology.

[5]  Max Johann Sigismund Schultze,et al.  Zur Anatomie und Physiologie der Retina , 1866 .

[6]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  The effects of amplitude-spectrum statistics on foveal and peripheral discrimination of changes in natural images, and a multi-resolution model , 2005, Vision Research.

[7]  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.

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

[9]  L. Ling,et al.  Magnification factors and the organization of the human striate cortex. , 1988, Human neurobiology.

[10]  Robert O. Duncan,et al.  Cortical Magnification within Human Primary Visual Cortex Correlates with Acuity Thresholds , 2003, Neuron.

[11]  Abdelhakim Saadane,et al.  Toward a unified fidelity metric of still-coded images , 2007, J. Electronic Imaging.

[12]  A B Watson,et al.  Efficiency of a model human image code. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[13]  J. Horton,et al.  The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex. A revision of the classic Holmes map. , 1991, Archives of ophthalmology.

[14]  A. Watson,et al.  A standard model for foveal detection of spatial contrast. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[15]  K. Mullen,et al.  Differential distributions of red–green and blue–yellow cone opponency across the visual field , 2002, Visual Neuroscience.

[16]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[17]  C. Alejandro Párraga,et al.  Evaluation of a multiscale color model for visual difference prediction , 2006, TAP.

[18]  D. Levi,et al.  The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea , 1992, Vision Research.

[19]  Jeffrey Lubin,et al.  A VISUAL DISCRIMINATION MODEL FOR IMAGING SYSTEM DESIGN AND EVALUATION , 1995 .

[20]  Scott J. Daly,et al.  Visible differences predictor: an algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[21]  J. Sjöstrand,et al.  Resolution, separation of retinal ganglion cells, and cortical magnification in humans , 2001, Vision Research.

[22]  S. Klein,et al.  Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification , 1985, Vision Research.

[23]  A. Bradley,et al.  Characterization of spatial aliasing and contrast sensitivity in peripheral vision , 1996, Vision Research.

[24]  D. Pelli,et al.  The uncrowded window of object recognition , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Summation of perceptual cues in natural visual scenes , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[27]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Crowding with conjunctions of simple features. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[28]  A. Cowey,et al.  Preferential representation of the fovea in the primary visual cortex , 1993, Nature.

[29]  A. M. Rohaly,et al.  Object detection in natural backgrounds predicted by discrimination performance and models , 1997, Vision Research.