Perceptual mechanisms underlying amodal surface integration of 3-D stereoscopic stimuli

ABSTRACT The visual system can represent a partially occluded 3‐D surface from images of separated surface segments. The underlying amodal surface integration process accomplishes this by amodally extending each surface segment behind the occluder (amodal surface extension) and integrating the extended surfaces to form a whole surface representation. We conducted five experiments to investigate how depth cues, such as binocular disparity, half‐occlusion, and monocular depth cues (T‐junctions and L‐junctions), contribute to amodal surface extension, and how the geometrical relationship and image similarity among the surface segments affect surface integration. This was achieved by having observers adjust the stereoscopic depth and slant of a comparison stimulus to match those of the tested 3‐D stimulus. We found that both binocular disparity and half‐occlusion cues are used to determine border‐ownership assignment of surface segments and for amodal surface extension. We also found that separated surface segments need to have the same luminance contrast‐polarity for them to be integrated as a whole surface. Finally, we found that having the same motion direction, minimum misalignment between boundary contours, and proximity among separated segments facilitate their integration. Overall, our findings reveal a set of “perceptual factors” for amodal surface integration, which arguably reflects our visual system's built‐in knowledge of the regularities in natural scenes.

[1]  W. Gerbino,et al.  Contour curvature polarity and surface interpolation , 2005, Vision Research.

[2]  G. Kanizsa,et al.  Organization in Vision: Essays on Gestalt Perception , 1979 .

[3]  K Nakayama,et al.  Stereoscopic Depth: Its Relation to Image Segmentation, Grouping, and the Recognition of Occluded Objects , 1989, Perception.

[4]  E. Leeuwenberg,et al.  Competing global and local completions in visual occlusion. , 1995 .

[5]  E. Leeuwenberg,et al.  Competing global and local completions in visual occlusion. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Alexandra C. Schmid,et al.  The Role of Amodal Surface Completion in Stereoscopic Transparency , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[7]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Real world occlusion constraints and binocular rivalry , 1990, Vision Research.

[8]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Amodal presence of partially occluded surfaces: role of invisible stimuli in apparent motion correspondence , 1990 .

[9]  Takeo Watanabe,et al.  Transparent surfaces defined by implicit X junctions , 1993, Vision Research.

[10]  Jeffrey S. Perry,et al.  Contour statistics in natural images: Grouping across occlusions , 2009, Visual Neuroscience.

[11]  Branka Spehar,et al.  When does illusory contour formation depend on contrast polarity? , 2003, Vision Research.

[12]  Philip J Kellman,et al.  Surface integration influences depth discrimination , 2000, Vision Research.

[13]  Rüdiger von der Heydt,et al.  Remapping of Border Ownership in the Visual Cortex , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  K. Nakayama,et al.  DaVinci stereopsis: Depth and subjective contours from unpaired monocular points , 1990 .

[15]  Zijiang J He,et al.  The Monocular-Boundary-Contour Mechanism in Binocular Surface Representation and Suppression , 2008, Perception.

[16]  M. K. Albert.  Mechanisms of modal and amodal interpolation. , 2007, Psychological review.

[17]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  Illusory contours and cortical neuron responses. , 1984, Science.

[18]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  Coding of Border Ownership in Monkey Visual Cortex , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  R. Hetherington.  The Perception of the Visual World , 1952 .

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

[21]  Peter Ulric Tse,et al.  Volume Completion , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[22]  Takeo Kanade,et al.  A Theory of Origami World , 1979, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Patrick Garrigan,et al.  3-d interpolation in object perception: evidence from an objective performance paradigm. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  A neural model of figure-ground organization. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  Stephen E. Palmer,et al.  Local and Global Processes in Visual Completion , 1994 .

[26]  Patrick Garrigan,et al.  Object interpolation in three dimensions. , 2005, Psychological review.

[27]  P J Kellman,et al.  Surface Completion Complements Boundary Interpolation in the Visual Integration of Partly Occluded Objects , 1997, Perception.

[28]  P U Tse,et al.  Amodal Completion in the Absence of Image Tangent Discontinuities , 1998, Perception.

[29]  A. Michotte,et al.  Les compléments amodaux des structures perceptives , 1964 .

[30]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Surface completion affected by luminance contrast polarity and common motion. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[31]  P. Kellman,et al.  A theory of visual interpolation in object perception , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[32]  F. Qiu,et al.  Figure and Ground in the Visual Cortex: V2 Combines Stereoscopic Cues with Gestalt Rules , 2005, Neuron.

[33]  Takeo Watanabe,et al.  Orientation and color processing for partially occluded objects , 1995, Vision Research.

[34]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Da vinci stereopsis: Depth and subjective occluding contours from unpaired image points , 1990, Vision Research.

[35]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Illusory-Contour Formation Affected by Luminance Contrast Polarity , 1998, Perception.

[36]  S. Grossberg,et al.  Neural dynamics of form perception: boundary completion, illusory figures, and neon color spreading. , 1985, Psychological review.

[37]  Adolfo Guzman,et al.  Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies , 1968 .

[38]  Walter Gerbino,et al.  Visual interpolation is not scale invariant , 2006, Vision Research.

[39]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Visual surface representation: a critical link between lower-level and higher level vision , 1995 .

[40]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Amodal Representation of Occluded Surfaces: Role of Invisible Stimuli in Apparent Motion Correspondence , 1990, Perception.

[41]  A. Sekuler.  Local and Global Minima in Visual Completion: Effects of Symmetry and Orientation , 1994, Perception.

[42]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Boundary contour-based surface integration affected by color , 2010, Vision Research.

[43]  Zijiang J. He,et al.  Terrain influences the accurate judgement of distance , 1998, Nature.

[44]  N Rubin,et al.  The Role of Junctions in Surface Completion and Contour Matching , 2001, Perception.

[45]  R. Fleming,et al.  The Interpolation of Object and Surface Structure , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[46]  P. Kellman,et al.  Surface interpolation and 3D relatability. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[47]  R. Shapley,et al.  Spatial and Temporal Properties of Illusory Contours and Amodal Boundary Completion , 1996, Vision Research.

[48]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Contour Completion and Relative Depth: Petter's Rule and Support Ratio , 1999 .

[49]  P. Kellman,et al.  Strength of visual interpolation depends on the ratio of physically specified to total edge length , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[50]  Evan M. Palmer,et al.  of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance Differentiating Global and Local Contour Completion Using a Dot Localization Paradigm , 2016 .

[51]  P. Kellman,et al.  A common mechanism for illusory and occluded object completion. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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