Segmenting surface boundaries using luminance cues

Second-order boundaries segment more easily when they are density-defined rather than feature-defined

Previous studies have demonstrated that density is an important perceptual aspect of textural appearance to which the visual system is highly attuned. Furthermore, it is known that density cues not only influence texture segmentation, but can enable segmentation by themselves, in the absence of other cues. A popular computational model of texture segmentation known as the "Filter-Rectify-Filter" (FRF) model predicts that density should be a second-order cue enabling segmentation. For a compound texture boundary defined by superimposing two single-micropattern density boundaries, a version of the FRF model in which different micropattern-specific channels are analyzed separately by different second-stage filters makes the prediction that segmentation thresholds should be identical in two cases: (1) Compound boundaries with an equal number of micropatterns on each side but different relative proportions of each variety (compound feature boundaries) and (2) Compound boundaries with different numbers of micropatterns on each side, but with each side having an identical number of each variety (compound density boundaries). We directly tested this prediction by comparing segmentation thresholds for second-order compound feature and density boundaries, comprised of two superimposed single-micropattern density boundaries comprised of complementary micropattern pairs differing either in orientation or contrast polarity. In both cases, we observed lower segmentation thresholds for compound density boundaries than compound feature boundaries, with identical results when the compound density boundaries were equated for RMS contrast. In a second experiment, we considered how two varieties of micropatterns summate for compound boundary segmentation. In the case where two single micro-pattern density boundaries are superimposed to form a compound density boundary, we find that the two channels combine via probability summation. By contrast, when they are superimposed to form a compound feature boundary, segmentation performance is worse than for either channel alone. From these findings, we conclude that density segmentation may rely on neural mechanisms different from those which underlie feature segmentation, consistent with recent findings suggesting that density comprises a separate psychophysical 'channel'.

Distinguishing shadows from surface boundaries using local achromatic cues

In order to accurately parse the visual scene into distinct surfaces, it is essential to determine whether a local luminance edge is caused by a boundary between two surfaces or a shadow cast across a single surface. Previous studies have demonstrated that local chromatic cues may help to distinguish edges caused by shadows from those caused by surface boundaries, but the information potentially available in local achromatic cues like contrast, texture, and penumbral blur remains poorly understood. In this study, we develop and analyze a large database of hand-labeled achromatic shadow edges to better understand what image properties distinguish them from occlusion edges. We find that both the highest contrast as well as the lowest contrast edges are more likely to be occlusions than shadows, extending previous observations based on a more limited image set. We also find that contrast cues alone can reliably distinguish the two edge categories with nearly 70% accuracy at 40x40 resolution. Logistic regression on a Gabor Filter bank (GFB) modeling a population of V1 simple cells separates the categories with nearly 80% accuracy, and furthermore exhibits tuning to penumbral blur. A Filter-Rectify Filter (FRF) style neural network extending the GFB model performed at better than 80% accuracy, and exhibited blur tuning and greater sensitivity to texture differences. We compare human performance on our edge classification task to that of the FRF and GFB models, finding the best human observers attaining the same performance as the machine classifiers. Several analyses demonstrate both classifiers exhibit significant positive correlation with human behavior, although we find a slightly better agreement on an image-by-image basis between human performance and the FRF model than the GFB model, suggesting an important role for texture.

Distinguishing edges caused by changes in illumination from edges caused by surface boundaries is an essential computation for accurately parsing the visual scene. Previous psychophysical investigations examining the utility of various locally available cues to classify edges as shadows or surface boundaries have primarily focused on color, as surface boundaries often give rise to more significant change in color than shadows. However, even in grayscale images we can readily distinguish shadows from surface boundaries, suggesting an important role for achromatic cues in addition to color. We demonstrate using statistical analysis of natural shadow and surface boundary edges that locally available achromatic cues can be exploited by machine classifiers to reliably distinguish these two edge categories. These classifiers exhibit sensitivity to blur and local texture differences, and exhibit reasonably good agreement with humans classifying edges as shadows or surface boundaries. As trichromatic vision is relatively rare in the animal kingdom, our work suggests how organisms lacking rich color vision can still exploit other cues to avoid mistaking illumination changes for surface changes.

Functional recursion of orientation cues in figure-ground separation

Visual texture is an important cue to figure-ground organization. While processing of texture differences is a prerequisite for the use of this cue to extract figure-ground organization, these stages are distinct processes. One potential indicator of this distinction is the possibility that texture statistics play a different role in the figure vs. in the ground. To determine whether this is the case, we probed figure-ground processing with a family of local image statistics that specified textures that varied in the strength and spatial scale of structure, and the extent to which features are oriented. For image statistics that generated approximately isotropic textures, the threshold for identification of figure-ground structure was determined by the difference in correlation strength in figure vs. ground, independent of whether the correlations were present in figure, ground, or both. However, for image statistics with strong orientation content, thresholds were up to two times higher for correlations in the ground, vs. the figure. This held equally for texture-defined objects with convex or concave boundaries, indicating that these threshold differences are driven by border ownership, not boundary shape. Similar threshold differences were found for presentation times ranging from 125 to 500 ms. These findings identify a qualitative difference in how texture is used for figure-ground analysis, vs. texture discrimination. Additionally, it reveals a functional recursion: texture differences are needed to identify tentative boundaries and consequent scene organization into figure and ground, but then scene organization modifies sensitivity to texture differences according to the figure-ground assignment.

Luminance texture boundaries and luminance step boundaries are segmented using different mechanisms

In natural scenes, two adjacent surfaces may differ in mean luminance without any sharp change in luminance at their boundary, but rather due to different relative proportions of light and dark regions within each surface. We refer to such boundaries as luminance texture boundaries (LTBs), and in this study we investigate whether LTBs are segmented using different mechanisms than luminance step boundaries (LSBs). We develop a novel method to generate luminance texture boundaries from natural uniform textures, and using these natural LTB stimuli in a boundary segmentation task, we find that observers are much more sensitive to identical luminance differences which are defined by textures (LTBs) than by uniform luminance steps (LSBs), consistent with the possibility of different mechanisms. In a second and third set of experiments, we characterize observer performance segmenting natural LTBs in the presence of masking LSBs which observers are instructed to ignore. We show that there is very little effect of masking LSBs on LTB segmentation performance. Furthermore, any masking effects we find are far less than those observed in a control experiment where both the masker and target are LSBs, and far less than those predicted by a model assuming identical mechanisms. Finally, we perform a fourth set of boundary segmentation experiments using artificial LTB stimuli comprised of differing proportions of white and black dots on opposite sides of the boundary. We find that these stimuli are also highly robust to masking by supra-threshold LSBs, consistent with our results using natural stimuli, and with our earlier studies using similar stimuli. Taken as a whole, these results suggest that the visual system contains mechanisms well suited to detecting surface boundaries that are robust to interference from luminance differences arising from luminance steps like those formed by cast shadows.