Global Properties of Natural Scenes Shape Local Properties of Human Edge Detectors

Visual cortex analyzes images by first extracting relevant details (e.g., edges) via a large array of specialized detectors. The resulting edge map is then relayed to a processing pipeline, the final goal of which is to attribute meaning to the scene. As this process unfolds, does the global interpretation of the image affect how local feature detectors operate? We characterized the local properties of human edge detectors while we manipulated the extent to which the statistical properties of the surrounding image conformed to those encountered in natural vision. Although some aspects of local processing were unaffected by contextual manipulations, we observed significant alterations in the operating characteristics of the detector which were solely attributable to a higher-level semantic interpretation of the scene, unrelated to lower-level aspects of image statistics. Our results suggest that it may be inaccurate to regard early feature detectors as operating outside the domain of higher-level vision; although there is validity in this approach, a full understanding of their properties requires the inclusion of knowledge-based effects specific to the statistical regularities found in the natural environment.

[1]  Steven C Dakin,et al.  Contrast gain control in natural scenes. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[2]  Rodrigo F. Salazar,et al.  Responses to natural scenes in cat V1. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  L N Piotrowski,et al.  A Demonstration of the Visual Importance and Flexibility of Spatial-Frequency Amplitude and Phase , 1982, Perception.

[4]  Michael J. Morgan,et al.  Features and the ‘primal sketch’ , 2011, Vision Research.

[5]  D. Levi,et al.  Receptive versus perceptive fields from the reverse-correlation viewpoint , 2006, Vision Research.

[6]  A E Burgess,et al.  Visual signal detection. IV. Observer inconsistency. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[7]  Richard F Murray,et al.  Classification images predict absolute efficiency. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[8]  P. Bennett,et al.  Inversion Leads to Quantitative, Not Qualitative, Changes in Face Processing , 2004, Current Biology.

[9]  D. Burr,et al.  Evidence for edge and bar detectors in human vision , 1989, Vision Research.

[10]  W. Geisler Visual perception and the statistical properties of natural scenes. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.

[11]  Robert Shapley,et al.  Receptive field structure of neurons in monkey primary visual cortex revealed by stimulation with natural image sequences. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[12]  J. Touryan,et al.  Spatial Structure of Complex Cell Receptive Fields Measured with Natural Images , 2005, Neuron.

[13]  Peter Neri,et al.  Evidence for joint encoding of motion and disparity in human visual perception. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  Richard F Murray,et al.  Optimal methods for calculating classification images: weighted sums. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[15]  W. Bialek,et al.  Naturalistic stimuli increase the rate and efficiency of information transmission by primary auditory afferents , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  William Bialek,et al.  Statistics of Natural Images: Scaling in the Woods , 1993, NIPS.

[17]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Modeling the Shape of the Scene: A Holistic Representation of the Spatial Envelope , 2001, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[18]  Xin Huang,et al.  Lightness, filling-in, and the fundamental role of context in visual perception. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[19]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Change blindness: past, present, and future , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Robert A. Frazor,et al.  Independence of luminance and contrast in natural scenes and in the early visual system , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  S. Solomon,et al.  Contrast sensitivity in natural scenes depends on edge as well as spatial frequency structure. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[22]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Neural Basis of the Behavioral Face-Inversion Effect , 2005, Current Biology.

[23]  D. Pollen,et al.  Phase relationships between adjacent simple cells in the visual cortex. , 1981, Science.

[24]  Ben Willmore,et al.  The Receptive-Field Organization of Simple Cells in Primary Visual Cortex of Ferrets under Natural Scene Stimulation , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Classification images for detection, contrast discrimination, and identification tasks with a common ideal observer. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[26]  Tatyana O Sharpee,et al.  On the importance of static nonlinearity in estimating spatiotemporal neural filters with natural stimuli. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[27]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  The Sparseness of Neuronal Responses in Ferret Primary Visual Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Statistics of natural image categories , 2003, Network.

[29]  R. Hess,et al.  Size matters, but not for everyone: individual differences for contrast discrimination. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[30]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  Surround modulation in human vision unmasked by masking experiments , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[31]  Refractor Vision , 2000, The Lancet.

[32]  D. Burr,et al.  Feature detection in human vision: a phase-dependent energy model , 1988, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[33]  Anne Hsu,et al.  Tuning for spectro-temporal modulations as a mechanism for auditory discrimination of natural sounds , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[34]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Parallel processing in high-level categorization of natural images , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[35]  Christian K. Machens,et al.  Linearity of Cortical Receptive Fields Measured with Natural Sounds , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[36]  Robert A. Frazor,et al.  Local luminance and contrast in natural images , 2006, Vision Research.

[37]  Peter Neri,et al.  How inherently noisy is human sensory processing? , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  Crowding in Peripheral Vision: Why Bigger Is Better , 2009, Current Biology.

[39]  Gidon Felsen,et al.  A natural approach to studying vision , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[40]  Feng Qi Han,et al.  Cortical Sensitivity to Visual Features in Natural Scenes , 2005, PLoS biology.

[41]  J. Gallant,et al.  Natural Stimulus Statistics Alter the Receptive Field Structure of V1 Neurons , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[42]  Ronald N. Bracewell,et al.  The Fourier Transform and Its Applications , 1966 .

[43]  Konrad Paul Kording,et al.  Processing of complex stimuli and natural scenes in the visual cortex , 2004, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[44]  P. Thompson,et al.  Margaret Thatcher: A New Illusion , 1980, Perception.

[45]  T. Foulsham,et al.  What can saliency models predict about eye movements? Spatial and sequential aspects of fixations during encoding and recognition. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[46]  T. Valentine Upside-down faces: a review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition. , 1988, British journal of psychology.

[47]  M. Young,et al.  Centre‐surround interactions in response to natural scene stimulation in the primary visual cortex , 2005, The European journal of neuroscience.

[48]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Cortical correlates of face and scene inversion: A comparison , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[49]  Peter Neri,et al.  Temporal dynamics of figure-ground segregation in human vision. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[51]  Jeffrey S. Perry,et al.  Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance , 2001, Vision Research.

[52]  A. Ahumada Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[53]  Allison B Sekuler,et al.  Exploration of vertical bias in perceptual completion of illusory contours: Threshold measures and response classification. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[54]  Yuguo Yu,et al.  Preference of sensory neural coding for 1/f signals. , 2005, Physical review letters.

[55]  M. Banks,et al.  The effects of contrast, spatial scale, and orientation on foveal and peripheral phase discrimination , 1991, Vision Research.

[56]  Vasilis Z. Marmarelis,et al.  Nonlinear Dynamic Modeling of Physiological Systems , 2004 .

[57]  D. Field,et al.  Phase reversal discrimination , 1984, Vision Research.

[58]  Jonathan Dobres,et al.  Perceptual learning of oriented gratings as revealed by classification images. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[59]  J. Gallant,et al.  Natural Stimulation of the Nonclassical Receptive Field Increases Information Transmission Efficiency in V1 , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[60]  P. Neri Stochastic characterization of small-scale algorithms for human sensory processing. , 2010, Chaos.

[61]  N. Graham Visual Pattern Analyzers , 1989 .

[62]  Brian A. Wandell,et al.  Population receptive field estimates in human visual cortex , 2008, NeuroImage.

[63]  Anthony A. Wright,et al.  Monkey and Human Face Perception: Inversion Effects for Human Faces But Not for Monkey Faces or Scenes , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[64]  Allison B. Sekuler,et al.  The effects of face inversion and contrast-reversal on efficiency and internal noise , 2008, Vision Research.

[65]  G. Rousselet,et al.  How do amplitude spectra influence rapid animal detection? , 2009, Vision Research.

[66]  Sean P. MacEvoy,et al.  Macaque V1 activity during natural vision: effects of natural scenes and saccades. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[67]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[68]  Nicole C. Rust,et al.  In praise of artifice , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.