Literature DB >> 23341602

Specular reflections and the estimation of shape from binocular disparity.

Alexander A Muryy1, Andrew E Welchman, Andrew Blake, Roland W Fleming.   

Abstract

Binocular stereopsis is a powerful visual depth cue. To exploit it, the brain matches features from the two eyes' views and measures their interocular disparity. This works well for matte surfaces because disparities indicate true surface locations. However, specular (glossy) surfaces are problematic because highlights and reflections are displaced from the true surface in depth, leading to information that conflicts with other cues to 3D shape. Here, we address the question of how the visual system identifies the disparity information created by specular reflections. One possibility is that the brain uses monocular cues to identify that a surface is specular and modifies its interpretation of the disparities accordingly. However, by characterizing the behavior of specular disparities we show that the disparity signals themselves provide key information ("intrinsic markers") that enable potentially misleading disparities to be identified and rejected. We presented participants with binocular views of specular objects and asked them to report perceived depths by adjusting probe dots. For simple surfaces--which do not exhibit intrinsic indicators that the disparities are "wrong"--participants incorrectly treat disparities at face value, leading to erroneous judgments. When surfaces are more complex we find the visual system also errs where the signals are reliable, but rejects and interpolates across areas with large vertical disparities and horizontal disparity gradients. This suggests a general mechanism in which the visual system assesses the origin and utility of sensory signals based on intrinsic markers of their reliability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23341602      PMCID: PMC3568321          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212417110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  31 in total

1.  Perception of three-dimensional shape influences colour perception through mutual illumination.

Authors:  M G Bloj; D Kersten; A C Hurlbert
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Interaction of visual prior constraints.

Authors:  P Mamassian; M S Landy
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  A prior for global convexity in local shape-from-shading.

Authors:  M S Langer; H H Bülthoff
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.490

Review 4.  Object perception as Bayesian inference.

Authors:  Daniel Kersten; Pascal Mamassian; Alan Yuille
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 24.137

5.  Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties.

Authors:  Roland W Fleming; Ron O Dror; Edward H Adelson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Perception of three-dimensional shape from specular highlights, deformations of shading, and other types of visual information.

Authors:  J Farley Norman; James T Todd; Guy A Orban
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-08

7.  Specular reflections and the perception of shape.

Authors:  Roland W Fleming; Antonio Torralba; Edward H Adelson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2004-09-23       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion.

Authors:  Marc O Ernst; Martin S Banks
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-24       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  The dark side of gloss.

Authors:  Juno Kim; Phillip J Marlow; Barton L Anderson
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2012-09-23       Impact factor: 24.884

10.  Steroscopic vision: cortical limitations and a disparity scaling effect.

Authors:  C W Tyler
Journal:  Science       Date:  1973-07-20       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  8 in total

1.  Key characteristics of specular stereo.

Authors:  Alexander A Muryy; Roland W Fleming; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Contributions of binocular and monocular cues to motion-in-depth perception.

Authors:  Lowell Thompson; Mohan Ji; Bas Rokers; Ari Rosenberg
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Infants recognize words spoken through opaque masks but not through clear masks.

Authors:  Leher Singh; Agnes Tan; Paul C Quinn
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2021-05-03

4.  'Proto-rivalry': how the binocular brain identifies gloss.

Authors:  Alexander A Muryy; Roland W Fleming; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Differential processing of binocular and monocular gloss cues in human visual cortex.

Authors:  Hua-Chun Sun; Massimiliano Di Luca; Hiroshi Ban; Alexander Muryy; Roland W Fleming; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  fMRI evidence for areas that process surface gloss in the human visual cortex.

Authors:  Hua-Chun Sun; Hiroshi Ban; Massimiliano Di Luca; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  The Veiled Virgin illustrates visual segmentation of shape by cause.

Authors:  Flip Phillips; Roland W Fleming
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Gloss and Speed Judgments Yield Different Fine Tuning of Saccadic Sampling in Dynamic Scenes.

Authors:  Matteo Toscani; Ezgi I Yücel; Katja Doerschner
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2019-12-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.