A similarity-based approach to perceptual feature validation

Which object properties matter most in human perception may well vary according to sensory modality, an important consideration for the design of multimodal interfaces. In this study, we present a similarity-based method for comparing the perceptual importance of object properties across modalities and show how it can also be used to perceptually validate computational measures of object properties. Similarity measures for a set of three-dimensional (3D) objects varying in shape and texture were gathered from humans in two modalities (vision and touch) and derived from a set of standard 2D and 3D computational measures (image and mesh subtraction, object perimeter, curvature, Gabor jet filter responses, and the Visual Difference Predictor (VDP)). Multidimensional scaling (MDS) was then performed on the similarity data to recover configurations of the stimuli in 2D perceptual/computational spaces. These two dimensions corresponded to the two dimensions of variation in the stimulus set: shape and texture. In the human visual space, shape strongly dominated texture. In the human haptic space, shape and texture were weighted roughly equally. Weights varied considerably across subjects in the haptic experiment, indicating that different strategies were used. Maps derived from shape-dominated computational measures provided good fits to the human visual map. No single computational measure provided a satisfactory fit to the map derived from mean human haptic data, though good fits were found for individual subjects; a combination of measures with individually-adjusted weights may be required to model the human haptic similarity judgments. Our method provides a high-level approach to perceptual validation, which can be applied in both unimodal and multimodal interface design.

[1]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Representation and recognition in vision , 1999 .

[2]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Object perception and object naming in early development , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Hans-Peter Seidel,et al.  Predicting visible differences in high dynamic range images: model and its calibration , 2005, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[4]  Scott Daly,et al.  Digital Images and Human Vision , 1993 .

[5]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Digital images and human vision , 1993 .

[6]  David P. Dobkin,et al.  A search engine for 3D models , 2003, TOGS.

[7]  Calvin P. Garbin Visual-haptic perceptual nonequivalence for shape information and its impact upon cross-modal performance. , 1988 .

[8]  Zhou Wang,et al.  Image Quality Assessment: From Error Measurement to Structural Similarity , 2004 .

[9]  K. R. Clarke,et al.  Change in marine communities : an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation , 2001 .

[10]  Eric Acosta,et al.  Heuristic haptic texture for surgical simulations. , 2002, Studies in health technology and informatics.

[11]  J. P. Jones,et al.  An evaluation of the two-dimensional Gabor filter model of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex. , 1987, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Support Vector Machines for 3D Shape Processing , 2005, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[13]  John Kenneth Salisbury,et al.  Haptic Rendering: Introductory Concepts , 2004, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[14]  U. Hahn,et al.  Similarity and categorization , 2001 .

[15]  Martin A. Giese,et al.  A neural model for biological movement recognition: a neurophysiologically plausible theory , 2004 .

[16]  T. Poggio,et al.  Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Astrid M L Kappers,et al.  Detection of Amplitude Modulation and Frequency Modulation in Tactual Gratings: A Critical Bandwidth for Active Touch , 2003, Perception.

[18]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[19]  Susan J. Lederman,et al.  Extracting object properties through haptic exploration. , 1993, Acta psychologica.

[20]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Towards a Computational Model for Object Recognition in IT Cortex , 2000, Biologically Motivated Computer Vision.

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

[22]  S. Ullman High-Level Vision: Object Recognition and Visual Cognition , 1996 .

[23]  S. Edelman,et al.  Representation of object similarity in human vision: psychophysics and a computational model , 1998, Vision Research.

[24]  Michel Vidal-Naquet,et al.  Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[25]  R. Thouless Experimental Psychology , 1939, Nature.

[26]  S Lakatos,et al.  Haptic form perception: Relative salience of local and global features , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  R. Klatzky,et al.  There's more to touch than meets the eye: The salience of object attributes for haptics with and without vision. , 1987 .

[28]  Martin Čadík,et al.  Evaluation of two principal approaches to objective image quality assessment , 2004 .

[29]  Ariane S Etienne,et al.  Path integration in mammals , 2004, Hippocampus.

[30]  J. Chang,et al.  Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition , 1970 .

[31]  Benjamin Watson,et al.  Measuring and predicting visual fidelity , 2001, SIGGRAPH.

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

[33]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Local Grayvalue Invariants for Image Retrieval , 1997, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..