PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7839613

Sensitivity to orientation modulation in micropattern-based textures.

F A Kingdom·D Keeble·B Moulden
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We have measured the sensitivity of the human visual system to sinusoidal modulations of orientation in micropattern-based textured stimuli. The result is the orientation modulation function, or OMF, which describes this sensitivity as a function of the spatial frequency of orientation modulation. We found that the OMF was bandpass with peak sensitivity at spatial frequencies ranging between 0.06 and 0.2 c/deg, depending on the size of the micropatterns. The OMF was found to be scale invariant, that is its position on the spatial frequency axis did not change with viewing distance when spatial frequency was measured in object rather than retinal units. This scale invariance was shown to result from the visual system taking into account the scale rather than the density of the micropatterns as viewing distance was changed. It has been argued by Bergen [(1991) Vision and visual dysfunction (Vol. 10B) New York: Macmillan] that scale invariance in textures is a consequence of the coupling of mechanisms which detect textural features with those which detect local luminance contrasts. We reasoned that Gabor micropattern textures might therefore show narrower OMFs compared to line micropattern textures. However we found no difference in OMF bandwidth between the Gabor and line micropattern textures, suggesting that the line micropatterns were acting as selectively as the Gabor micropatterns for the spatial scale of the mechanisms which detected the orientation modulation. Evidence is presented which suggests that the mechanisms which detected the orientation modulation in our stimuli are non-linear. Finally we showed similar OMFs for sine-wave and square-wave modulations of micropattern orientation, and similar OMFs for modulations of micropattern with orientation about the horizontal and about the vertical, the direction of modulation in both cases being horizontal. The implications of these findings for the mechanisms involved in orientation-defined texture processing is discussed.

Explore related subjects

Contrast SensitivityHumansLightMalePattern Recognition, VisualRotationSensory ThresholdsTime FactorsJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F A Kingdom, D Keeble, B Moulden. 1995. Sensitivity to orientation modulation in micropattern-based textures.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(94)e0079-z

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1997

Pitfalls in estimating motion detector receptive field geometry.

A number of psychophysical investigations have used spatial-summation methods to estimate the receptive field (RF) geometry of motion detectors by exploring how psychophysical thresholds change with stimulus height and/or width. This approach is based on the idea that an observer's ability to detect motion direction is strongly determined by the relationship between the stimulus geometry (height and width) and the RF of the activated motion detectors. Our results show that previous estimates of RF geometry can depend significantly on stimulus position in the visual field as well as on the stimulus height-to-width ratio. The data further show that RF estimates depend on the stimulus in a manner that is inconsistent with basic predictions derived from current motion detector models. Hence previous estimates of height, width, and height-to-width ratios of motion detector RFs are inaccurate and unreliable. This inaccuracy/unreliability is attributed to a number of sources. These include incorrect fixed-parameter values in model fits, as well as the confounding of physiological spatial summation area through combined use of contrast thresholds and Gaussian-windowed stimuli. A third source of error is an asymmetric variation of spatiotemporal correlation in the stimulus as either its height or width is varied (and the other dimension held constant). Most importantly, a fourth source of unreliability is attributed to the existence of a nonlinear, nonmonotonic distribution of motion detectors in the visual field that has been previously described and is a natural result of visual anatomy.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed1997

Perceived location of bars and edges in one-dimensional images: computational models and human vision.

Observers used a cursor to mark the location and polarity of all the bar and edge features seen in compound (f + 3f) gratings of moderate frequency and contrast. They almost always reported six bars and six edges per cycle of the fundamental frequency (f = 0.4 c/deg, contrast 32%), for all phases of the third harmonic (3f = 1.2 c/deg, contrast 10.7%). This general pattern of features was predicted by the positions of peaks and troughs in the outputs of even and odd filters applied to the stimulus waveform, but not by peaks of "local energy" since there were only two energy peaks per cycle. We considered a family of filters whose amplitude spectrum has slope p on a log-log plot. The best-fitting filter slope was determined for bars (even filter) and edges (odd filter) in conjunction with a classification rule in which all peaks and troughs in the response profile are counted as features. If bars were seen at luminance peaks, and edges seen at gradient peaks (zero-crossings in the second derivative) we should have found p = 0 for bars and p = 1 for edges. In fact, for both bars and edges the best-fitting slope was about p = 0.5. For edges, this is consistent with the use of a smoothed (Gaussian) derivative operator. The filters form a quadrature pair, as in the energy model, but features are not constrained to lie at energy peaks. A compressive transducer preceding the filters improved the goodness-of-fit for predicted edge locations, but did not affect the estimate of filter slopes, nor the goodness-of-fit for bar locations. In an experiment with single blurred edges we confirmed that the perceived location of edges is shifted towards the darker side of the edge in direct proportion to the contrast of the edge. This was well predicted by adding a compressive transducer to the filter model.

Contrast Sensitivity↗