Principles of contour information: Reply to Lim and Leek (2012).

Lim and Leek (2012) presented a formalization of information along object contours, which they argued was an alternative to the approach taken in our article (Feldman & Singh, 2005). Here, we summarize the 2 approaches, showing that--notwithstanding Lim and Leek's (2012) critical rhetoric--their approach is substantially identical to ours, except for the technical details of the formalism. Following the logic of our article point by point, Lim and Leek (a) defined probabilistic expectations about the geometry of smooth contours (which they based on differential contour geometry, while we used a discrete approximation--the only essential difference in their approach), (b) assumed that information along the contour was proportional to the negative logarithm of probability, following standard information theory, and then (c) extended this formulation to closed contours. We analyze what they described as errors in our approach, all of which rest on mathematical misunderstandings or bizarre misreadings of our article. We also show that their extension to 3-dimensional surfaces and their "modified minima rule" contain fatal deficiencies.

[1]  Marco Bertamini,et al.  Detection of change in shape and its relation to part structure. , 2005, Acta psychologica.

[2]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Detection of change in shape: an advantage for concavities , 2003, Cognition.

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

[4]  D. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Orientation Selectivity and the Arrangement of Horizontal Connections in Tree Shrew Striate Cortex , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[5]  T. Shipley,et al.  PART-BASED REPRESENTATIONS OF VISUAL SHAPE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR VISUAL COGNITION , 2002 .

[6]  Ik Soo Lim,et al.  Curvature and the visual perception of shape: theory on information along object boundaries and the minima rule revisited. , 2012, Psychological review.

[7]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Perceptual saliency of points along the contour of everyday objects: A large-scale study , 2008 .

[8]  F. Attneave.  Some informational aspects of visual perception. , 1954, Psychological review.

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

[10]  J Feldman,et al.  Regularity Vs Genericity in the Perception of Collinearity , 1996, Perception.

[11]  Jacqueline M. Fulvio,et al.  Bayesian contour extrapolation: Geometric determinants of good continuation , 2007, Vision Research.

[12]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parts of recognition , 1984, Cognition.

[13]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Parsing silhouettes: The short-cut rule , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  J. Smits,et al.  The Perception of Continuous Curves in Dot Stimuli , 1987, Perception.

[15]  Jacob feldman,et al.  Bayesian contour integration , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  The concavity effect is a compound of local and global effects , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[17]  Jan J. Koenderink,et al.  Solid shape , 1990 .

[18]  J. Koenderink,et al.  The Shape of Smooth Objects and the Way Contours End , 1982, Perception.

[19]  W R Uttal,et al.  The effect of deviations from linearity on the detection of dotted line patterns. , 1973, Vision research.

[20]  Nicholas V. Swindale,et al.  Orientation tuning curves: empirical description and estimation of parameters , 1998, Biological Cybernetics.

[21]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Salience of visual parts , 1997, Cognition.

[22]  David J. Field,et al.  Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local “association field” , 1993, Vision Research.

[23]  A. Rosenfeld,et al.  Curve Detection in a Noisy Image , 1997, Vision Research.

[24]  K Siddiqi,et al.  Parts of Visual Form: Psychophysical Aspects , 1996, Perception.

[25]  Manish Singh,et al.  Geometric determinants of shape segmentation: Tests using segment identification , 2007, Vision Research.

[26]  J. Feldman.  Curvilinearity, covariance, and regularity in perceptual groups , 1997, Vision Research.

[27]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Visual comparisons within and between object parts: evidence for a single-part superiority effect , 2003, Vision Research.

[28]  Jacqueline M. Fulvio,et al.  Visual extrapolation of contour geometry. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  S. R. Jammalamadaka,et al.  Directional Statistics, I , 2011 .

[30]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Rapid Integration of Contour Fragments: From Simple Filling-in to Parts-based Shape Description , 1999 .

[31]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Identification of Everyday Objects on the Basis of Fragmented Outline Versions , 2008, Perception.

[32]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  The Awakening of Attneave's Sleeping cat: Identification of Everyday Objects on the Basis of Straight-Line Versions of Outlines , 2008, Perception.

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

[34]  Manish Singh,et al.  What change detection tells us about the visual representation of shape. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[35]  J. Feldman,et al.  Information along contours and object boundaries. , 2005, Psychological review.

[36]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Segmentation of object outlines into parts: A large-scale integrative study , 2006, Cognition.