Relations between the statistical regularities of natural images and the response properties of the early visual system

Natural images are not random; instead, they ex- hibit statistical regularities. Assuming that our vision is designed for tasks on natural images, computation in the visual system should be optimized for such regularities. Recent theoretical investigations along this line have provided many insights into the visual response properties in the early visual system. In this article we review both the known statistical regularities of natural images, the extent to which low-level vision might be adapted to them, and the recent development in theoretical models to explain this relationship. Natural images are highly variable. When we look at the texture of natural surfaces like tree bark, we immediately recognize it as such in spite of large variations in the actual images that fall on our retina. In order to accomplish this feat, our visual system must be able to pool the natural range of variability and to recognize an image as an instance of the same image type. Thus an important part of vision involves capturing the statistical variation of natural images. At the same time, natural images are very specific. We know how different they are from random images. The characteri- zation of their statistical regularities has been an important research topic in science and engineering fields. We can state its ultimate goal as developing a probability model that generates images indistinguishable from natural images. We are still far from this goal, although our knowledge of natural images has been increasing. An important motivation of such an investigation is to better understand how our visual system codes visual information. Information theory states that the most statistically efficient codes are those that best capture the statistical regularities of the data. Because biological systems are under strong evolutionary pressure, it is hypothesized that the codes they use are highly efficient. Furthermore, knowledge of the statistical regularities of the data allows the system to perform important visual tasks such as finding interesting features and filling in missing information. More generally, the questions we need to answer are: what are the computational objectives of the early visual system, what are the computationally relevant biological constraints, and to what extent can the response properties be explained in relation to the statistical regularities of their input. In this article we address side by side what we know about the statistical regularities of natural images and how the early visual system (low-level vision) can be explained in terms of them (recent reviews on this subject can be found

[1]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  Learning Efficient Auditory Codes Using Spikes Predicts Cochlear Filters , 2004, NIPS.

[2]  Erkki Oja,et al.  Independent Component Analysis , 2001 .

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

[4]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  L. Croner,et al.  Receptive fields of P and M ganglion cells across the primate retina , 1995, Vision Research.

[6]  G. Buchsbaum,et al.  Trichromacy, opponent colours coding and optimum colour information transmission in the retina , 1983, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[7]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  On Advances in Statistical Modeling of Natural Images , 2004, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision.

[8]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  Efficient auditory coding , 2006, Nature.

[9]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  The Helmholtz Machine , 1995, Neural Computation.

[10]  Joseph J. Atick,et al.  What Does the Retina Know about Natural Scenes? , 1992, Neural Computation.

[11]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  The “independent components” of natural scenes are edge filters , 1997, Vision Research.

[12]  Robert G. Smith,et al.  Spike Generator Limits Efficiency of Information Transfer in a Retinal Ganglion Cell , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[14]  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.

[15]  Joseph J. Atick,et al.  Towards a Theory of Early Visual Processing , 1990, Neural Computation.

[16]  David J. Field,et al.  How Close Are We to Understanding V1? , 2005, Neural Computation.

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

[18]  Bruno A. Olshausen,et al.  Sparse Codes and Spikes , 2001 .

[19]  J. Daugman Uncertainty relation for resolution in space, spatial frequency, and orientation optimized by two-dimensional visual cortical filters. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[20]  P O Hoyer,et al.  Independent component analysis applied to feature extraction from colour and stereo images , 2000, Network.

[21]  D. Macleod,et al.  Optimal nonlinear codes for the perception of natural colours , 2001, Network.

[22]  David Williams,et al.  The arrangement of the three cone classes in the living human eye , 1999, Nature.

[23]  Joseph J. Atick,et al.  Convergent Algorithm for Sensory Receptive Field Development , 1993, Neural Computation.

[24]  Terrence J Sejnowski,et al.  Communication in Neuronal Networks , 2003, Science.

[25]  T. W. Lee,et al.  Chromatic structure of natural scenes. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[26]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Spatiochromatic Receptive Field Properties Derived from Information-Theoretic Analyses of Cone Mosaic Responses to Natural Scenes , 2003, Neural Computation.

[27]  P. Lennie,et al.  Fine Structure of Parvocellular Receptive Fields in the Primate Fovea Revealed by Laser Interferometry , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  M. Lewicki,et al.  Learning higher-order structures in natural images , 2003, Network.

[29]  P. Lennie,et al.  Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivities of neurones in lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque. , 1984, The Journal of physiology.

[30]  D. G. Albrecht,et al.  Spatial frequency selectivity of cells in macaque visual cortex , 1982, Vision Research.

[31]  S. Engel,et al.  Colour tuning in human visual cortex measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging , 1997, Nature.

[32]  David J Tolhurst,et al.  Independent components of color natural scenes resemble V1 neurons in their spatial and color tuning. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  A Theoretical Analysis of Robust Coding over Noisy Overcomplete Channels , 2005, NIPS.

[34]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function , 2002 .

[35]  M. A. Repucci,et al.  Spatial Structure and Symmetry of Simple-Cell Receptive Fields in Macaque Primary Visual Cortex , 2002 .

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

[37]  B. B. Lee,et al.  Receptive fields of primate retinal ganglion cells studied with a novel technique , 1998, Visual Neuroscience.

[38]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image compression via joint statistical characterization in the wavelet domain , 1999, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[39]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  Sparse Coding of Natural Images Using an Overcomplete Set of Limited Capacity Units , 2004, NIPS.

[40]  J. H. Hateren,et al.  Information theoretical evaluation of parametric models of gain control in blowfly photoreceptor cells , 2001, Vision Research.

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

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

[43]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Natural signal statistics and sensory gain control , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[44]  Aapo Hyvärinen,et al.  Topographic Independent Component Analysis , 2001, Neural Computation.

[45]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  Efficient coding of natural sounds , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[46]  L. Finkel,et al.  Color-opponent receptive fields derived from independent component analysis of natural images , 2000, Vision Research.

[47]  Adrienne L. Fairhall,et al.  Efficiency and ambiguity in an adaptive neural code , 2001, Nature.

[48]  S. Laughlin A Simple Coding Procedure Enhances a Neuron's Information Capacity , 1981, Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung. Section C, Biosciences.

[49]  D. Baylor,et al.  Spectral sensitivity of cones of the monkey Macaca fascicularis. , 1987, The Journal of physiology.

[50]  Michael S. Lewicki,et al.  A Hierarchical Bayesian Model for Learning Nonlinear Statistical Regularities in Nonstationary Natural Signals , 2005, Neural Computation.

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