Image/source statistics of surfaces in natural scenes

Perceiving surfaces in a manner that accords with their physical properties is essential for successful behaviour. Since, however, a given retinal image can have been generated by an infinite variety of natural surfaces with different geometrical and/or physical qualities, the corresponding percepts cannot be determined by the stimulus per se. Rather, resolution of this quandary requires a strategy of vision that incorporates the statistical relationship of the information in retinal images to its sources in representative environments. To examine this probabilistic relationship with respect to the features of object surfaces, we analysed a database of range images in which the distances of all the objects in a series of natural scenes were measured with respect to the image plane by a laser range scanner. By taking any particular scene obtained in this way to be made up of a set of concatenated surface patches, we were able to explore the statistics of scene roughness, size–distance relationships, surface orientation and local curvature, as well as the independent components of natural surfaces. The relevance of these statistics to both perception and the neuronal organization of the underlying visual circuitry is discussed.

[1]  David J. Field,et al.  Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: A strategy employed by V1? , 1997, Vision Research.

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

[3]  J. O. Robinson.  The Psychology of Visual Illusion , 1972 .

[4]  Barbara Gillam,et al.  The Perception of Spatial Layout from Static Optical Information , 1995 .

[5]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  INTERACTION OF DIFFERENT MODULES IN DEPTH PERCEPTION. , 1987, ICCV 1987.

[6]  D. Mumford,et al.  Stochastic models for generic images , 2001 .

[7]  David J. Field,et al.  What Is the Goal of Sensory Coding? , 1994, Neural Computation.

[8]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  Unsupervised Learning , 1989, Neural Computation.

[9]  J. H. Hateren,et al.  Independent component filters of natural images compared with simple cells in primary visual cortex , 1998 .

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

[11]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[12]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Pictorial surface attitude and local depth comparisons , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  Daniel Kersten,et al.  High-level Vision as Statistical Inference , 1999 .

[14]  G D Lewen,et al.  Neural coding of naturalistic motion stimuli , 2001, Network.

[15]  D. Purves,et al.  Why we see what we do : an empirical theory of vision , 2003 .

[16]  D. Chakrabarti,et al.  A fast fixed - point algorithm for independent component analysis , 1997 .

[17]  David Mumford,et al.  Statistics of range images , 2000, Proceedings IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. CVPR 2000 (Cat. No.PR00662).

[18]  D. Long.  Probabilistic Models of the Brain. , 2002 .

[19]  Dale Purves,et al.  Range image statistics can explain the anomalous perception of length , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[20]  N. C. Singh,et al.  Estimating spatio-temporal receptive fields of auditory and visual neurons from their responses to natural stimuli , 2001 .

[21]  L. Finkel,et al.  Intermediate-Level Visual Representations and the Construction of Surface Perception , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[22]  D. Ruderman,et al.  Statistics of cone responses to natural images: implications for visual coding , 1998 .

[23]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Natural image statistics and neural representation. , 2001, Annual review of neuroscience.

[24]  M. Hershenson,et al.  Visual Space Perception: A Primer , 1998 .

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

[26]  Daniel L. Ruderman,et al.  Origins of scaling in natural images , 1996, Vision Research.

[27]  R. W. Ditchburn.  Seeing is Deceiving: The Psychology of Visual Illusions , 1979 .

[28]  Dale Purves,et al.  A statistical explanation of visual space , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[29]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Integration of depth modules: stereo and shading. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[30]  D. Ruderman,et al.  Independent component analysis of natural image sequences yields spatio-temporal filters similar to simple cells in primary visual cortex , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  D. Ruderman,et al.  INDEPENDENT COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF NATURAL IMAGE SEQUENCES YIELDS SPATIOTEMPORAL FILTERS SIMILAR TO SIMPLE CELLS IN PRIMARY VISUAL CORTEX , 1998 .

[32]  Stanley Coren,et al.  Perceptual Phenomena. (Book Reviews: Seeing Is Deceiving. The Psychology of Visual Illusions) , 1978 .

[33]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Unsupervised Learning , 2018, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[34]  J. V. van Hateren,et al.  Independent component filters of natural images compared with simple cells in primary visual cortex , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[35]  Aapo Hyvärinen,et al.  A two-layer sparse coding model learns simple and complex cell receptive fields and topography from natural images , 2001, Vision Research.

[36]  H Barlow,et al.  Redundancy reduction revisited , 2001, Network.

[37]  S. Laughlin.  Matching coding, circuits, cells, and molecules to signals: General principles of retinal design in the fly's eye , 1994, Progress in Retinal and Eye Research.

[38]  J. Elder,et al.  Ecological statistics of Gestalt laws for the perceptual organization of contours. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[39]  Ann B. Lee.  Occlusion Models for Natural Images: A Statistical Study of a Scale-Invariant Dead Leaves Model , 2001 .