Various visual cues provide information about depth and shape in a scene. When several of these cues are simultaneously available in a single location in the scene, the visual system attempts to combine them. In this paper, we discuss three key issues relevant to the experimental analysis of depth cue combination in human vision: cue promotion, dynamic weighting of cues, and robustness of cue combination. We review recent psychophysical studies of human depth cue combination in light of these issues. We organize the discussion and review as the development of a model of the depth cue combination process termed modified weak fusion (MWF). We relate the MWF framework to Bayesian theories of cue combination. We argue that the MWF model is consistent with previous experimental results and is a parsimonious summary of these results. While the MWF model is motivated by normative considerations, it is primarily intended to guide experimental analysis of depth cue combination in human vision. We describe experimental methods, analogous to perturbation analysis, that permit us to analyze depth cue combination in novel ways. In particular these methods allow us to investigate the key issues we have raised. We summarize recent experimental tests of the MWF framework that use these methods.
Humans are remarkably good at performing visual tasks, but experimental measurements reveal substantial biases in the perception of basic visual attributes. An appealing hypothesis is that these biases arise through a process of statistical inference, in which information from noisy measurements is fused with a probabilistic model of the environment. But such inference is optimal only if the observer’s internal model matches the environment. Here, we provide evidence that this is the case. We measured performance in an orientation-estimation task, demonstrating the well-known fact that orientation judgements are more accurate at cardinal (horizontal and vertical) orientations, along with a new observation that judgements made under conditions of uncertainty are strongly biased toward cardinal orientations. We estimate observers’ internal models for orientation and find that they match the local orientation distribution measured in photographs. We also show how a neural population could embed probabilistic information responsible for such biases.
How does the visual system combine information from different depth cues to estimate three-dimensional scene parameters? We tested a maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) model of cue combination for perspective (texture) and binocular disparity cues to surface slant. By factoring the reliability of each cue into the combination process, MLE provides more reliable estimates of slant than would be available from either cue alone. We measured the reliability of each cue in isolation across a range of slants and distances using a slant-discrimination task. The reliability of the texture cue increases as |slant| increases and does not change with distance. The reliability of the disparity cue decreases as distance increases and varies with slant in a way that also depends on viewing distance. The trends in the single-cue data can be understood in terms of the information available in the retinal images and issues related to solving the binocular correspondence problem. To test the MLE model, we measured perceived slant of two-cue stimuli when disparity and texture were in conflict and the reliability of slant estimation when both cues were available. Results from the two-cue study indicate, consistent with the MLE model, that observers weight each cue according to its relative reliability: Disparity weight decreased as distance and |slant| increased. We also observed the expected improvement in slant estimation when both cues were available. With few discrepancies, our data indicate that observers combine cues in a statistically optimal fashion and thereby reduce the variance of slant estimates below that which could be achieved from either cue alone. These results are consistent with other studies that quantitatively examined the MLE model of cue combination. Thus, there is a growing empirical consensus that MLE provides a good quantitative account of cue combination and that sensory information is used in a manner that maximizes the precision of perceptual estimates.
Humans use multiple sources of sensory information to estimate environmental properties. For example, the eyes and hands both provide relevant information about an object's shape. The eyes estimate shape using binocular disparity, perspective projection, etc. The hands supply haptic shape information by means of tactile and proprioceptive cues. Combining information across cues can improve estimation of object properties but may come at a cost: loss of single-cue information. We report that single-cue information is indeed lost when cues from within the same sensory modality (disparity and texture gradients in vision) are combined, but not when different modalities (vision and haptics) are combined.
We present two experiments that test the range of applicability of a movement planning model (MEGaMove) based on statistical decision theory. Subjects attempted to earn money by rapidly touching a green target region on a computer screen while avoiding nearby red penalty regions. In two experiments we varied the magnitudes of penalties, the degree of overlap of target and penalty regions, and the number of penalty regions. Overall, subjects acted so as to maximize gain in a wide variety of stimulus configurations, in good agreement with predictions of the model.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.