PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 6850004

Slant-tilt: the visual encoding of surface orientation.

Abstract

A specific form for the internal representation of local surface orientation is proposed, which is similar to Gibson's (1950) "amount and direction of slant". Slant amount is usually quantified by the angle sigma between the surface normal and the line of sight (0 degrees less than or equal to sigma less than or equal to 90 degrees). Slant direction corresponds to the direction of the gradient of distance from the viewer to the surface, and may be defined by the image direction tau to which the surface normal would project (0 degrees less than or equal to tau less than or equal to 360 degrees). Since the direction of slant is specified by the tilt of the projected surface normal, it is referred to as surface tilt (Stevens, 1979; Marr, 1982). The two degrees of freedom of orientation are therefore quantified by slant, an angle measured perpendicular to the image plane, and tilt, an angle measured in the image plane. The slant-tilt form provides several computational advantages relative to some other proposals and is consistent with various psychological phenomena. Slant might be encoded by various means, e.g. by the cosine of the angle, by the tangent, or linearly by the angle itself. Experimental results are reported that suggest that slant is encoded by an internal parameter that varies linearly with slant angle, with resolution of roughly one part in 100. Thus we propose that surface orientation is encoded in human vision by two quantities, one varying linearly with slant angle, the other varying linearly with tilt angle.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K A Stevens. 1983. Slant-tilt: the visual encoding of surface orientation.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00336800

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Direct evidence for the existence of energy-based texture mechanisms.

Two classes of models have been proposed to explain how the visual system processes texture modulations. In 'feature models', abstract representations of the featural properties of local texture regions (eg orientation, spatial frequency, contrast) are first generated, after which differences in individual feature properties across space are detected. In 'energy models', on the other hand, differences across space in the response energies of linear simple-cell-like filters are detected. This model thus processes the existing differences between texture regions directly without generating a full representation of the individual texture regions. We provide here direct evidence for the existence of the second, energy model, using an adaptation paradigm in conjunction with textures simultaneously modulated in two dimensions--orientation and spatial frequency. We found that the mechanism that processed the conjoint modulation was tuned to orientations and spatial frequencies that could not be predicted by any feature model, but which were precisely predicted by the energy model.

Differential Threshold↗