Testing the role of luminance edges in White's illusion with contour adaptation

Betz, Torsten; Shapley, Robert; Wichmann, Felix A.; Maertens, Marianne

doi:10.1167/15.11.14

Cited by 13 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are also in agreement with the narrow-band orientation-dependent noise masking and enhancement effects reported by Salmela and Laurinen (2009), and with the orientation dependent edge-adaptation effects reported by Betz, Shapley, Wichmann and Maertens (2015). Salmela and Laurinen (2009) found that noise masking with a narrow orientation band (within a narrow spatial frequency band) orthogonal to the background grating decreased White’s illusion and that noise masking with an orientation band parallel to the background grating increased the illusion.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Salmela and Laurinen (2009) found that noise masking with a narrow orientation band (within a narrow spatial frequency band) orthogonal to the background grating decreased White’s illusion and that noise masking with an orientation band parallel to the background grating increased the illusion. Similarly, Betz et al (2015) found that contour adaptation at the location of the test patch edges orthogonal to the grating reduced (or in some instances reversed) White’s effect and that contour adaptation at the location of the test patch edges parallel to the grating slightly increased the illusion. These results are in agreement with the contrast behavior observed in the current study in response to independent manipulations of collinear or flanking bar luminance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In White’s effect equiluminant test patches placed on the black and white bars of a square-wave grating appear different in brightness. The illusion has generated intense interest because the direction of the brightness effect does not correlate with the amount of black or white border in contact with the test patch, or in its general vicinity. Therefore, unlike brightness induction effects such as simultaneous contrast, White’s effect is not consistent with explanations based on contrast or assimilation that depend solely on the relative amounts of black and white surrounding the test patches. We independently manipulated the luminance of the collinear and flanking bars to investigate their influence on test patch matching luminance (brightness). The inducing grating was a 0.5 c/d square-wave and test patches measured 1.0° in width and either 0.5° or 3.0° in height. Test patches measuring 0.5° in height had more extensive contact with the collinear bars and test patches measuring 3.0° in height had more extensive contact with the flanking bars. The luminance of the collinear (or flanking) bars assumed twenty values from 3.2 to 124.8 cd/m2, while the luminance of the flanking (or collinear) bars remained white (124.8 cd/m2) or black (3.2 cd/m2). Under these conditions the influence of the collinear and flanking bars was found to be purely in the direction of contrast. The effect was dominated by contrast from the collinear bars (which results in White’s effect), however, the influence of the flanking bars was also in the contrast direction. The data elucidate the luminance relationships between the collinear and flanking bars which produce the behavior associated with White’s effect as well as that associated with “the inverted White effect” which is akin to simultaneous contrast.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another very interesting example is that of White's illusion, a brightness illusion in which two identical gray areas are perceived as being different due to their disparate surrounds. Vision models based on a linear RF can reproduce the illusion, but they fail to match the psychophysical data when bandpass noise is added to the image 56 . The INRF model with a fixed set of parameters is able to replicate White's illusion and predict the observers' response when different types of bandpass noise are added, see Fig.…”

Section: Applications Of the Inrf For Vision Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the intrinsically nonlinear nature of receptive fields in vision

Bertalmío

Gomez-Villa

Martín

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The responses of visual neurons, as well as visual perception phenomena in general, are highly nonlinear functions of the visual input, while most vision models are grounded on the notion of a linear receptive field (RF). The linear RF has a number of inherent problems: it changes with the input, it presupposes a set of basis functions for the visual system, and it conflicts with recent studies on dendritic computations. Here we propose to model the RF in a nonlinear manner, introducing the intrinsically nonlinear receptive field (INRF). Apart from being more physiologically plausible and embodying the efficient representation principle, the INRF has a key property of wide-ranging implications: for several vision science phenomena where a linear RF must vary with the input in order to predict responses, the INRF can remain constant under different stimuli. We also prove that Artificial Neural Networks with INRF modules instead of linear filters have a remarkably improved performance and better emulate basic human perception. Our results suggest a change of paradigm for vision science as well as for artificial intelligence.

show abstract

“…Rudd (Rudd, 2013(Rudd, , 2014Rudd & Zemach, 2005) proposed a model of lightness perception in which edge integration is a critical factor in the computation of lightness. We have recently provided additional support for this approach by showing that White's illusion is largely determined by the luminance contrast across the edges of the test patch (Betz, Shapley, Wichmann, & Maertens, 2015). In that study, we used contour adaptation (Anstis, 2013) to selectively mask the edges of the test patch that are either orthogonal or parallel to the inducing grating.…”

Section: Lightness Perception and Luminance Edgesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noise masking of White's illusion exposes the weakness of current spatial filtering models of lightness perception

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial filtering models are currently a widely accepted mechanistic account of human lightness perception. Their popularity can be ascribed to two reasons: They correctly predict how human observers perceive a variety of lightness illusions, and the processing steps involved in the models bear an apparent resemblance with known physiological mechanisms at early stages of visual processing. Here, we tested the adequacy of these models by probing their response to stimuli that have been modified by adding narrowband noise. Psychophysically, it has been shown that noise in the range of one to five cycles per degree (cpd) can drastically reduce the strength of some lightness phenomena, while noise outside this range has little or no effect on perceived lightness. Choosing White's illusion (White, 1979) as a test case, we replicated and extended the psychophysical results, and found that none of the spatial filtering models tested was able to reproduce the spatial frequency specific effect of narrowband noise. We discuss the reasons for failure for each model individually, but we argue that the failure is indicative of the general inadequacy of this class of spatial filtering models. Given the present evidence we do not believe that spatial filtering models capture the mechanisms that are responsible for producing many of the lightness phenomena observed in human perception. Instead we think that our findings support the idea that low-level contributions to perceived lightness are primarily determined by the luminance contrast at surface boundaries.

show abstract

Testing the role of luminance edges in White's illusion with contour adaptation

Cited by 13 publications

References 46 publications

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

Dissecting the influence of the collinear and flanking bars in White’s effect

Evidence for the intrinsically nonlinear nature of receptive fields in vision

Noise masking of White's illusion exposes the weakness of current spatial filtering models of lightness perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About