No abstract

No abstract

It is widely believed that form and motion are analysed separately in mammalian visual systems. Form is confined within a stream that projects ventrally from V1 to the inferotemporal cortex, and motion within a stream that projects more dorsally, to the posterior parietal cortex [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Current descriptions suggest that there is little contact between the two streams until the products of their separate analyses are bound together at a late (and still unidentified) stage in perception [3] [8] [9] [10]. There are, however, indications that form and motion signals may interact [11], and that form signals, streaks derived from motion, may assist in the analysis of its direction [12]. Lennie [13] proposes that all image attributes, form and motion included, remain intimately coupled within the same retinotopic map at all stages of visual analysis. Here we show that form, independent of motion, can give coherence to incoherent motion. Sequences of Glass patterns [14] built to a common global rule are devoid of coherent motion signals, but they produce motion consistent with the global rule for form, not with the random velocity components of the pattern sequence.

The ability of the visual system to detect stimuli that vary along dimensions other than luminance or color-"second-order" stimuli-has been of considerable interest in recent years. An important unresolved issue is whether different types of second-order stimuli are detected by a single, all purpose, mechanism, or by mechanisms that are specific to stimulus type. Using a conventional psychophysical paradigm, we show that for a class of second-order stimuli-textures sinusoidally modulated in orientation (OM), spatial frequency (FM), and contrast (CM)-the human visual system employs mechanisms that are selective to stimulus type. Whereas the addition of a subthreshold mask to a test pattern of the same stimulus type was found to facilitate the detection of the test, no facilitation was observed when mask and test were of different types, suggesting mechanism independence for the different types of stimulus. This finding raises the important question of whether mechanism independence is compatible with the well-known filter-rectify-filter (FRF) model of second-order stimulus detection, since FRF mechanisms, in principle, do not discriminate between stimulus types. We show that for all mask0test combinations except those with CM masks, the FRF mechanism giving the largest response to the test modulation is largely unaffected by subthreshold levels of a different stimulus-type mask. For this reason, we cannot rule out the possibility that FRF mechanisms mediate the detection of our stimuli. For combinations involving CM masks, however, we propose that a process of contrast normalization renders the test stimulus insensitive to the mask stimulus.

Recent research on texture synthesis suggests that characterisation of those properties of textures to which human observers are sensitive may be provided by the histograms of the coefficients of a wavelet decomposition. In this study we examined the properties of wavelet histograms that affect texture discrimination by measuring observer sensitivity to differences in the wavelet histograms of synthetic textures. The textures, generated via Gabor micropattern synthesis, were broadband, with amplitude spectra that are characteristic of natural images, i.e. 1/f. We measured texture-difference thresholds for three moments of the wavelet histograms -- variance, skew and kurtosis -- by manipulating the contrast, phase, and density, of the Gabor elements used to construct the textures. Observers discriminated more efficiently between textures that had differences in kurtosis, than between textures that had differences in either variance or skew. Performance was compared to two model observers; one used the pixel-luminance histogram, the other used the histogram of the output of wavelet-filters. The results support the idea that the visual system is relatively sensitive to the kurtosis, or 4th moment, of the wavelet histogram of textures. We argue that higher than 4th-order moments will, in practice, become increasingly difficult for the visual system to represent because the lack of a perfect match between the elements and the receptive fields effectively blurs the response histogram, thereby attenuating higher moments.