Oriented multiscale spatial filtering and contrast normalization

A parsimonious model of brightness induction in a continuum of stimuli including White, Howe and simultaneous brightness contrast

Barbara Blakeslee, Wren Pasieka, Mark McCourt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

49 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The White effect [Perception 8 (1979) 413] cannot be simply explained as due to either brightness contrast or brightness assimilation because the direction of the induced brightness change does not correlate with the amount of black or white border in contact with the gray test patch. This has led some investigators to abandon spatial filtering explanations not only for the White effect but for brightness perception in general. Offered instead are explanations based on a variety of junction analyses and/or perceptual organization schemes which in the case of the White effect are usually based on T-junctions. Recently, Howe [Perception 30 (2001) 1023] challenged T-junction based explanations with a novel variation of White's effect in which the T-junctions were constant while the brightness effect was eliminated or reversed, and proposed an alternative explanation in terms of illusory contours. The present study argues that an analysis at the level of illusory contours is not necessary and that a much simpler spatial filtering based explanation is sufficient. Brightness induction was measured in a set of stimuli chosen to illustrate the relationship between the Howe stimulus [Perception 30 (2001) 1023], the White stimulus [Perception 8 (1979) 413] and the classical simultaneous brightness contrast (SBC) stimulus. The White stimulus and the SBC stimulus occupy opposite ends of a continuum of stimuli in which the Howe stimulus is the mid-point. The psychophysical measurements were compared with the predictions of the oriented difference-of-Gaussians (ODOG) computational model of Blakeslee and McCourt [Vision Research 39 (1999) 4361]. The ODOG model parsimoniously accounted for both the direction and relative magnitude of the brightness effects suggesting that more complex mechanisms are not required to explain them.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)607-615
Number of pages9
JournalVision Research
Volume45
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2005

Fingerprint

Patch Tests
Research Personnel
Research
Direction compound
hydroquinone

Keywords

  • Contrast
  • Multiscale filtering
  • Normalization
  • Simultaneous brightness contrast
  • White effect

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems

Cite this

@article{7e331d5433934730b5c693d981958e21,
title = "Oriented multiscale spatial filtering and contrast normalization: A parsimonious model of brightness induction in a continuum of stimuli including White, Howe and simultaneous brightness contrast",
abstract = "The White effect [Perception 8 (1979) 413] cannot be simply explained as due to either brightness contrast or brightness assimilation because the direction of the induced brightness change does not correlate with the amount of black or white border in contact with the gray test patch. This has led some investigators to abandon spatial filtering explanations not only for the White effect but for brightness perception in general. Offered instead are explanations based on a variety of junction analyses and/or perceptual organization schemes which in the case of the White effect are usually based on T-junctions. Recently, Howe [Perception 30 (2001) 1023] challenged T-junction based explanations with a novel variation of White's effect in which the T-junctions were constant while the brightness effect was eliminated or reversed, and proposed an alternative explanation in terms of illusory contours. The present study argues that an analysis at the level of illusory contours is not necessary and that a much simpler spatial filtering based explanation is sufficient. Brightness induction was measured in a set of stimuli chosen to illustrate the relationship between the Howe stimulus [Perception 30 (2001) 1023], the White stimulus [Perception 8 (1979) 413] and the classical simultaneous brightness contrast (SBC) stimulus. The White stimulus and the SBC stimulus occupy opposite ends of a continuum of stimuli in which the Howe stimulus is the mid-point. The psychophysical measurements were compared with the predictions of the oriented difference-of-Gaussians (ODOG) computational model of Blakeslee and McCourt [Vision Research 39 (1999) 4361]. The ODOG model parsimoniously accounted for both the direction and relative magnitude of the brightness effects suggesting that more complex mechanisms are not required to explain them.",
keywords = "Contrast, Multiscale filtering, Normalization, Simultaneous brightness contrast, White effect",
author = "Barbara Blakeslee and Wren Pasieka and Mark McCourt",
year = "2005",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.visres.2004.09.027",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "607--615",
journal = "Vision Research",
issn = "0042-6989",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oriented multiscale spatial filtering and contrast normalization

T2 - A parsimonious model of brightness induction in a continuum of stimuli including White, Howe and simultaneous brightness contrast

AU - Blakeslee, Barbara

AU - Pasieka, Wren

AU - McCourt, Mark

PY - 2005/3/1

Y1 - 2005/3/1

N2 - The White effect [Perception 8 (1979) 413] cannot be simply explained as due to either brightness contrast or brightness assimilation because the direction of the induced brightness change does not correlate with the amount of black or white border in contact with the gray test patch. This has led some investigators to abandon spatial filtering explanations not only for the White effect but for brightness perception in general. Offered instead are explanations based on a variety of junction analyses and/or perceptual organization schemes which in the case of the White effect are usually based on T-junctions. Recently, Howe [Perception 30 (2001) 1023] challenged T-junction based explanations with a novel variation of White's effect in which the T-junctions were constant while the brightness effect was eliminated or reversed, and proposed an alternative explanation in terms of illusory contours. The present study argues that an analysis at the level of illusory contours is not necessary and that a much simpler spatial filtering based explanation is sufficient. Brightness induction was measured in a set of stimuli chosen to illustrate the relationship between the Howe stimulus [Perception 30 (2001) 1023], the White stimulus [Perception 8 (1979) 413] and the classical simultaneous brightness contrast (SBC) stimulus. The White stimulus and the SBC stimulus occupy opposite ends of a continuum of stimuli in which the Howe stimulus is the mid-point. The psychophysical measurements were compared with the predictions of the oriented difference-of-Gaussians (ODOG) computational model of Blakeslee and McCourt [Vision Research 39 (1999) 4361]. The ODOG model parsimoniously accounted for both the direction and relative magnitude of the brightness effects suggesting that more complex mechanisms are not required to explain them.

AB - The White effect [Perception 8 (1979) 413] cannot be simply explained as due to either brightness contrast or brightness assimilation because the direction of the induced brightness change does not correlate with the amount of black or white border in contact with the gray test patch. This has led some investigators to abandon spatial filtering explanations not only for the White effect but for brightness perception in general. Offered instead are explanations based on a variety of junction analyses and/or perceptual organization schemes which in the case of the White effect are usually based on T-junctions. Recently, Howe [Perception 30 (2001) 1023] challenged T-junction based explanations with a novel variation of White's effect in which the T-junctions were constant while the brightness effect was eliminated or reversed, and proposed an alternative explanation in terms of illusory contours. The present study argues that an analysis at the level of illusory contours is not necessary and that a much simpler spatial filtering based explanation is sufficient. Brightness induction was measured in a set of stimuli chosen to illustrate the relationship between the Howe stimulus [Perception 30 (2001) 1023], the White stimulus [Perception 8 (1979) 413] and the classical simultaneous brightness contrast (SBC) stimulus. The White stimulus and the SBC stimulus occupy opposite ends of a continuum of stimuli in which the Howe stimulus is the mid-point. The psychophysical measurements were compared with the predictions of the oriented difference-of-Gaussians (ODOG) computational model of Blakeslee and McCourt [Vision Research 39 (1999) 4361]. The ODOG model parsimoniously accounted for both the direction and relative magnitude of the brightness effects suggesting that more complex mechanisms are not required to explain them.

KW - Contrast

KW - Multiscale filtering

KW - Normalization

KW - Simultaneous brightness contrast

KW - White effect

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=11144269632&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=11144269632&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.visres.2004.09.027

DO - 10.1016/j.visres.2004.09.027

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 607

EP - 615

JO - Vision Research

JF - Vision Research

SN - 0042-6989

IS - 5

ER -