Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Perception of differences in natural-image stimuli: Why is peripheral viewing poorer than foveal?

Published: 06 October 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Visual Difference Predictor (VDP) models have played a key role in digital image applications such as the development of image quality metrics. However, little attention has been paid to their applicability to peripheral vision. Central (i.e., foveal) vision is extremely sensitive for the contrast detection of simple stimuli such as sinusoidal gratings, but peripheral vision is less sensitive. Furthermore, crowding is a well-documented phenomenon whereby differences in suprathreshold peripherally viewed target objects (such as individual letters or patches of sinusoidal grating) become more difficult to discriminate when surrounded by other objects (flankers). We examine three factors that might influence the degree of crowding with natural-scene stimuli (cropped from photographs of natural scenes): (1) location in the visual field, (2) distance between target and flankers, and (3) flanker-target similarity. We ask how these factors affect crowding in a suprathreshold discrimination experiment where observers rate the perceived differences between two sequentially presented target patches of natural images. The targets might differ in the shape, size, arrangement, or color of items in the scenes. Changes in uncrowded peripheral targets are perceived to be less than for the same changes viewed foveally. Consistent with previous research on simple stimuli, we find that crowding in the periphery (but not in the fovea) reduces the magnitudes of perceived changes even further, especially when the flankers are closer and more similar to the target. We have tested VDP models based on the response behavior of neurons in visual cortex and the inhibitory interactions between them. The models do not explain the lower ratings for peripherally viewed changes even when the lower peripheral contrast sensitivity was accounted for; nor could they explain the effects of crowding, which others have suggested might arise from errors in the spatial localization of features in the peripheral image. This suggests that conventional VDP models do not port well to peripheral vision.

References

[1]
Azzopardi, P. and Cowey, A. 1993. Preferential representation of the fovea in the primary visual cortex. Nature 361, 719--721.
[2]
Bouma, H. 1970. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature 226, 177--178.
[3]
Daly, S. 1993. The visible differences predictor: An algorithm for the assessment of image fidelity. In Digital Images and Human Vision. A. B. Watson, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 179--206.
[4]
Doll, T. J., McWorter, S. W., Wasilewski, A. A. and Schmieder, D. E. 1998. Robust, sensor-independent target detection and recognition based on computational models of human vision. Optical Engin. 37, 2006--2021.
[5]
Duncan, J. and Humphreys, G. W. 1989. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol. Rev. 96, 433--458
[6]
Duncan, R. O. and Boynton, G. M. 2003. Cortical magnification within human primary visual cortex correlates with acuity thresholds. Neuron 38, 659--671.
[7]
Horton, J. C. and Hoyt, W. F. 1991. The representation of the visual field human striate cortex: A revision of the classical Holmes map. Arch. Ophthalmol. 109, 816--824.
[8]
Levi, D. M. 2008. Crowding—An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review. Vis. Res. 48, 635--654.
[9]
Levi, D. M., Klein, S. A. and Aitsebaomo, P. 1985. Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification. Vis. Res. 25, 963--977.
[10]
Lovell, P. G., Párraga, C. A., Ripamonti, C., Troscianko, T. and Tolhurst, D. J. 2006. Evaluation of a multi-scale color model for visual difference prediction. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 3, 155--178.
[11]
Lubin, J. 1995. A visual discrimination model for imaging system design and evaluation. In Vision Models for Target Detection and Recognition, E. Peli, Ed. World Scientific, Singapore, 245--283.
[12]
Movshon, J. A., Thompson, I. D. and Tolhurst, D. J. 1978. Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity of neurones in Areas 17 and 18 of the cat's visual cortex. J. Phys. 283, 101--120.
[13]
Mullen, K. T., and Kingdom, F. A. A. 2002. Differential distributions of red-green and blue-yellow cone opponency across the visual field. Vis. Neurosci. 19, 1--10.
[14]
Párraga, C. A., Troscianko, T., and Tolhurst, D. J. 2005. The effects of amplitude-spectrum statistics on foveal and peripheral discrimination of changes in natural images, and a multi-resolution model. Vis. Res. 45, 3145--3168.
[15]
Pelli, D. G. and Tillman, K. A. 2008. The uncrowded window of object recognition. Nature Neurosci. 11, 1129--1135.
[16]
Põder, E. and Wagemans, J. 2007. Crowding with conjunctions of simple features. J. Vis. 7, 23, 1--12.
[17]
Popovic, Z. and Sjostrand, J. 2001. Resolution, separation of retinal ganglion cells, and cortical magnification in humans. Vis. Res. 41, 1313--1319.
[18]
Ripamonti, C., Tolhurst, D. J., Lovell, P. G. and Troscianko, T. 2005. Magnification factors in a V1 model of natural-image discrimination. J. Vis. 5, 595a.
[19]
Rohaly, A. M., Ahumada, A. J., and Watson, A. B. 1997. Object detection in natural backgrounds predicted by discrimination performance and models. Vis. Res. 37, 3225--3235.
[20]
Saadane, A. 2007. Toward a unified fidelity metric of still-coded images. J. Electron. Imag. 16, 013005.
[21]
Schultze, M. 1866. Zur anatomie und physiologie der retina. Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie 2, 175--286.
[22]
Thibos, L. N., Still, D. L., and Bradley, A. 1996. Characterization of spatial aliasing and contrast sensitivity in peripheral vision. Vis. Res. 36, 249--258.
[23]
To, M., Lovell, P. G., Troscianko, T., and Tolhurst, D. J. 2007. Visual difference predictor models for human suprathreshold ratings of differences between natural images: Complex-Cell models outperform simple-cell models. Perception 36, 157.
[24]
To, M., Lovell, P. G., Troscianko, T., and Tolhurst, D.J. 2008. Summation of perceptual cues in natural visual scenes. Proc. Royal Soc. B 275, 2299--2308.
[25]
Toet, A., Levi, D. M. 1992. The two-dimensional shape of spatial interaction zones in the parafovea. Vis. Res. 32, 1349--1357.
[26]
Tolhurst, D. J. and Ling, L. 1988. Magnification factors and the organization of the human striate cortex. Hum. Neurobiol. 6, 247--254.
[27]
Van Essen, D. C. Newsome, W. T., and Maunsell, J. H. 1984. The visual field representation in striate cortex of the macaque monkey. Vis. Res. 24, 429--448.
[28]
Watson, A. B. 1987. Efficiency of a model human image code. J. Optical Soc. Amer. A 4, 2401--2417.
[29]
Watson, A. B. and Ahumada, A. J. 2005. A standard model for foveal detection of spatial contrast. J. Vis. 5, 717--740.
[30]
Watson, A. B. and Solomon, J. A. 1997. Model of visual contrast gain control and pattern masking. J. Optical Soc. Amer. A 14, 2379--2391.

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Averaging sets of expressive faces is modulated by eccentricityJournal of Vision10.1167/19.11.219:11(2)Online publication date: 3-Sep-2019
  • (2013)Designing wearable devices for the factory: Rapid contextual experience prototyping2013 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)10.1109/CTS.2013.6567280(517-521)Online publication date: May-2013
  • (2011)Bee preparedProceedings of the 2011 16th International Conference on Computer Games10.1109/CGAMES.2011.6000350(262-269)Online publication date: 27-Jul-2011
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Perception of differences in natural-image stimuli: Why is peripheral viewing poorer than foveal?

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Transactions on Applied Perception
      ACM Transactions on Applied Perception  Volume 6, Issue 4
      September 2009
      63 pages
      ISSN:1544-3558
      EISSN:1544-3965
      DOI:10.1145/1609967
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 06 October 2009
      Accepted: 01 August 2009
      Received: 01 July 2009
      Published in TAP Volume 6, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Peripheral vision
      2. VDP models
      3. crowding
      4. image difference metrics
      5. peripheral vision
      6. psychophysical testing

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
      Reflects downloads up to 09 Nov 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2019)Averaging sets of expressive faces is modulated by eccentricityJournal of Vision10.1167/19.11.219:11(2)Online publication date: 3-Sep-2019
      • (2013)Designing wearable devices for the factory: Rapid contextual experience prototyping2013 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS)10.1109/CTS.2013.6567280(517-521)Online publication date: May-2013
      • (2011)Bee preparedProceedings of the 2011 16th International Conference on Computer Games10.1109/CGAMES.2011.6000350(262-269)Online publication date: 27-Jul-2011
      • (2011)Discrimination of natural scenes in central and peripheral visionVision Research10.1016/j.visres.2011.05.01051:14(1686-1698)Online publication date: Jul-2011

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      Full Access

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media