Brightness induction magnitude declines with increasing distance from the inducing field edge

Abstract

Brightness induction refers to a class of visual illusions where the perceived intensity of a region of space is influenced by the luminance of surrounding regions. These illusions are significant because they provide insight into the neural organization and processing strategies employed by the visual system. The nature of these processing strategies, however, has long been debated. Here we investigate the spatial characteristics of grating induction as a function of the distance from the inducing field edge to evaluate the viability of various competing models. In particular multiscale spatial filtering models and homogeneous filling-in models make very different predictions in regard to the magnitude of induction as a function of this distance. Filling-in explanations predict that the brightness/lightness of the filled-in region will be homogeneous, whereas multiscale filtering predicts a fall-off in induction magnitude with distance from the inducing field edge. Induction magnitude was measured using a narrow probe version of the quadrature-phase motion-cancellation paradigm (Blakeslee & McCourt, 2011) and a point-by-point brightness matching paradigm (McCourt, 1994; Blakeslee & McCourt, 1997; 1999). Both techniques reveal a decrease in the magnitude of induction with increasing distance from the inducing edge. A homogeneous filling-in mechanism cannot explain the induced structure in the test fields of these stimuli. The results argue strongly against filling-in mechanisms as well as against any mechanism that posits that induction is homogeneous. The structure of the induction is, however, well accounted for by the multiscale filtering (ODOG) model of Blakeslee and McCourt (1999). These results support models of brightness/lightness, such as filtering models, which preserve these gradients of induction.

The Oriented Difference of Gaussians (ODOG) model of brightness perception: Overview and executable Mathematica notebooks

“…Unlike competing explanations such as anchoring theory (Gilchrist, Kossyfidis, Bonato, Agostini, Cataliotti, Li, Spehar, Annan & Economou, 1999; Gilchrist, 2006), filling-in (Grossberg & Todorovic, 1988), edge-integration (Land & McCann, 1971; Rudd & Zemach, 2004; 2007), or layer decomposition (Anderson, 1997), the spatial filtering approach embodied by the ODOG model readily accounts for the often overlooked but ubiquitous gradient structure of induction which, while most striking in grating induction (McCourt, 1982; McCourt & Blakeslee, 2014; Blakeslee & McCourt, 1999; 2013; Kingdom, 1999), also occurs within the test fields of classical simultaneous brightness contrast and the White stimulus (Blakeslee & McCourt, 1999; 2014). Also, because the ODOG model does not require defined regions of interest it is generalizable to any stimulus, including natural images.…”

Brightness induction and suprathreshold vision: Effects of age and visual field

“…The quadrature phase motion cancelation technique has been described in detail elsewhere (Blakeslee & McCourt, 2008; 2011; 2013), and an annotated video demonstration and explanation of the quadrature phase motion cancelation technique is provided as supplemental material to Blakeslee & McCourt (2011). Briefly, a counterphasing inducing grating, a standing wave, produces a nearly instantaneous phase-reversed counterphasing induced grating, also a standing wave, in the homogeneous test field (McCourt, 1982; McCourt & Blakeslee, 1994; Blakeslee & McCourt, 1997, 2008).…”

“…We measured the magnitude of grating induction as a function of age using the quadrature-phase motion cancelation technique of Blakeslee & McCourt (2008; 2011; 2013). …”

“…In addition, a novel quadrature-phase motion cancelation procedure (Blakeslee & McCourt, 2008; 2011; 2013) allows the strength of the inhibitory processes giving rise to grating induction to be measured precisely for any combination of spatial and temporal frequency. Here we report results from two experiments designed to measure age-related changes in grating induction magnitude, and suprathreshold contrast perception more generally.…”

Analysis of retinal and cortical components of Retinex algorithms

“…1 and 2) and assimilation in more complicated patterns, as well as Adelson's checkershadow illusion that was traditionally thought to involve illumination estimation. 50,51,[53][54][55] Thus, the operational similarities between these two models 58,60 imply some important common grounds in color and brightness processing that are worth investigating in the future.…”