Literature DB >> 25540263

Key characteristics of specular stereo.

Alexander A Muryy1, Roland W Fleming2, Andrew E Welchman3.   

Abstract

Because specular reflection is view-dependent, shiny surfaces behave radically differently from matte, textured surfaces when viewed with two eyes. As a result, specular reflections pose substantial problems for binocular stereopsis. Here we use a combination of computer graphics and geometrical analysis to characterize the key respects in which specular stereo differs from standard stereo, to identify how and why the human visual system fails to reconstruct depths correctly from specular reflections. We describe rendering of stereoscopic images of specular surfaces in which the disparity information can be varied parametrically and independently of monocular appearance. Using the generated surfaces and images, we explain how stereo correspondence can be established with known and unknown surface geometry. We show that even with known geometry, stereo matching for specular surfaces is nontrivial because points in one eye may have zero, one, or multiple matches in the other eye. Matching features typically yield skew (nonintersecting) rays, leading to substantial ortho-epipolar components to the disparities, which makes deriving depth values from matches nontrivial. We suggest that the human visual system may base its depth estimates solely on the epipolar components of disparities while treating the ortho-epipolar components as a measure of the underlying reliability of the disparity signals. Reconstructing virtual surfaces according to these principles reveals that they are piece-wise smooth with very large discontinuities close to inflection points on the physical surface. Together, these distinctive characteristics lead to cues that the visual system could use to diagnose specular reflections from binocular information.
© 2014 ARVO.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binocular vision; correspondence problem; matching; material perception; specularity; stereopsis

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25540263      PMCID: PMC4278431          DOI: 10.1167/14.14.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  24 in total

Review 1.  The physiology of stereopsis.

Authors:  B G Cumming; G C DeAngelis
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 12.449

2.  Unconstrained stereoscopic matching of lines.

Authors:  R van Ee; C M Schor
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Why is spatial stereoresolution so low?

Authors:  Martin S Banks; Sergei Gepshtein; Michael S Landy
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2004-03-03       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  How configurations of binocular disparity determine whether stereoscopic slant or stereoscopic occlusion is seen.

Authors:  Philip M Grove; Jessica M Byrne; J Gillam Barbara
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Monocular transparency and unpaired stereopsis.

Authors:  Philip M Grove; Kevin R Brooks; Barton L Anderson; Barbara J Gillam
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Highlights, disparity, and perceived gloss with convex and concave surfaces.

Authors:  Iona S Kerrigan; Wendy J Adams
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Specular reflections and the estimation of shape from binocular disparity.

Authors:  Alexander A Muryy; Andrew E Welchman; Andrew Blake; Roland W Fleming
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Visual motion and the perception of surface material.

Authors:  Katja Doerschner; Roland W Fleming; Ozgur Yilmaz; Paul R Schrater; Bruce Hartung; Daniel Kersten
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 10.834

9.  Limits of stereopsis explained by local cross-correlation.

Authors:  Heather R Filippini; Martin S Banks
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Latitude and longitude vertical disparities.

Authors:  Jenny C A Read; Graeme P Phillipson; Andrew Glennerster
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 2.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  '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

2.  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

3.  "What Not" Detectors Help the Brain See in Depth.

Authors:  Nuno R Goncalves; Andrew E Welchman
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 10.834

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.