Literature DB >> 25595273

Perception of differences in naturalistic dynamic scenes, and a V1-based model.

Michelle P S To1, Iain D Gilchrist2, David J Tolhurst3.   

Abstract

We investigate whether a computational model of V1 can predict how observers rate perceptual differences between paired movie clips of natural scenes. Observers viewed 198 pairs of movies clips, rating how different the two clips appeared to them on a magnitude scale. Sixty-six of the movie pairs were naturalistic and those remaining were low-pass or high-pass spatially filtered versions of those originals. We examined three ways of comparing a movie pair. The Spatial Model compared corresponding frames between each movie pairwise, combining those differences using Minkowski summation. The Temporal Model compared successive frames within each movie, summed those differences for each movie, and then compared the overall differences between the paired movies. The Ordered-Temporal Model combined elements from both models, and yielded the single strongest predictions of observers' ratings. We modeled naturalistic sustained and transient impulse functions and compared frames directly with no temporal filtering. Overall, modeling naturalistic temporal filtering improved the models' performance; in particular, the predictions of the ratings for low-pass spatially filtered movies were much improved by employing a transient impulse function. The correlations between model predictions and observers' ratings rose from 0.507 without temporal filtering to 0.759 (p = 0.01%) when realistic impulses were included. The sustained impulse function and the Spatial Model carried more weight in ratings for normal and high-pass movies, whereas the transient impulse function with the Ordered-Temporal Model was most important for spatially low-pass movies. This is consistent with models in which high spatial frequency channels with sustained responses primarily code for spatial details in movies, while low spatial frequency channels with transient responses code for dynamic events.
© 2015 ARVO.

Keywords:  computational modeling; natural scenes; spatial processing; temporal processing; visual discrimination

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25595273     DOI: 10.1167/15.1.19

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


  39 in total

1.  Characterizing visual performance fields: effects of transient covert attention, spatial frequency, eccentricity, task and set size.

Authors:  M Carrasco; C P Talgar; E L Cameron
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2001

2.  Normal isopter position in the peripheral visual field in goldmann kinetic perimetry.

Authors:  Susanne Niederhauser; Daniel S Mojon
Journal:  Ophthalmologica       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.250

3.  The extent of crowding in peripheral vision does not scale with target size.

Authors:  Srimant P Tripathy; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 4.  Visual attention: the past 25 years.

Authors:  Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-04-28       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Asymmetries and idiosyncratic hot spots in crowding.

Authors:  Yury Petrov; Olga Meleshkevich
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Isoeccentric locations are not equivalent: the extent of the vertical meridian asymmetry.

Authors:  Jared Abrams; Aaron Nizam; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  The importance of sustained attention for patients with maculopathies.

Authors:  E Altpeter; M Mackeben; S Trauzettel-Klosinski
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Exploring the edges of visual space: the influence of visual boundaries on peripheral localization.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Shradha Sanghvi; Michael A Silver; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Persistent hemispheric differences in the perceptual selection of spatial frequencies.

Authors:  Elise A Piazza; Michael A Silver
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.225

Review 10.  Visual crowding: a fundamental limit on conscious perception and object recognition.

Authors:  David Whitney; Dennis M Levi
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 20.229

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.