nips nips2001 nips2001-145 nips2001-145-reference knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: pdf
Author: B. T. Backus
Abstract: Theories of cue combination suggest the possibility of constructing visual stimuli that evoke different patterns of neural activity in sensory areas of the brain, but that cannot be distinguished by any behavioral measure of perception. Such stimuli, if they exist, would be interesting for two reasons. First, one could know that none of the differences between the stimuli survive past the computations used to build the percepts. Second, it can be difficult to distinguish stimulus-driven components of measured neural activity from top-down components (such as those due to the interestingness of the stimuli). Changing the stimulus without changing the percept could be exploited to measure the stimulusdriven activity. Here we describe stimuli in which vertical and horizontal disparities trade during the construction of percepts of slanted surfaces, yielding stimulus equivalence classes. Equivalence class membership changed after a change of vergence eye posture alone, without changes to the retinal images. A formal correspondence can be drawn between these “perceptual metamers” and more familiar “sensory metamers” such as color metamers. 1
1. Clark, J.J. and A.L. Yuille, Data fusion for sensory information processing systems. 1990, Boston: Kluwer. 2. Landy, M.S., et al., Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: in defense of weak fusion. Vision Research, 1995. 35(3): p. 389-412. 3. Ogle, K.N., Induced size effect. I. A new phenomenon in binocular space perception associated with the relative sizes of the images of the two eyes. Archives of Ophthalmology, 1938. 20: p. 604-623. 4. Gårding, J., et al., Stereopsis, vertical disparity and relief transformations. Vision Res, 1995. 35(5): p. 703-22. 5. Backus, B.T., et al., Horizontal and vertical disparity, eye position, and stereoscopic slant perception. Vision Res, 1999. 39(6): p. 1143-70. 6. Banks, M.S. and B.T. Backus, Extra-retinal and perspective cues cause the small range of the induced effect. Vision Res, 1998. 38(2): p. 187-94. 7. Backus, B.T. and M.S. Banks, Estimator reliability and distance scaling in stereoscopic slant perception. Perception, 1999. 28(2): p. 217-42. 8. Foley, J.M., Binocular distance perception. Psychol Rev, 1980. 87(5): p. 411-34. 9. Backus, B.T. and M.J. Nolt, Analysis of stereoscopic metamers. Journal of Vision (Vision Sciences conference supplement), 2001. 1: p. in press. 10. Stevens, K.A., Slant-tilt: the visual encoding of surface orientation. Biol Cybern, 1983. 46(3): p. 183-95. 11. Rogers, B.J. and M.F. Bradshaw, Vertical disparities, differential perspective and binocular stereopsis. Nature, 1993. 361(6409): p. 253-5. 12. Mayhew, J.E. and H. Longuet-Higgins, C, A computational model of binocular depth perception. Nature, 1982. 297(5865): p. 376-378. 13. Calkins, D.J., J.E. Thornton, and E.N. Pugh, Jr., Monochromatism determined at a long-wavelength/middle-wavelength cone- antagonistic locus. Vision Res, 1992. 32(12): p. 2349-67. 14. van Ee, R. and C.J. Erkelens, Temporal aspects of binocular slant perception. Vision Res, 1996. 36(1): p. 43-51. 15. Enright, J.T., Sequential stereopsis: a simple demonstration. Vision Res, 1996. 36(2): p. 307-12. 16. Schor, C.M., J. Gleason, and D. Horner, Selective nonconjugate binocular adaptation of vertical saccades and pursuits. Vision Res, 1990. 30(11): p. 1827-44. 17. Barlow, H.B., Temporal and spatial summation in human vision at different backgound intensities. Journal of Physiology, 1958. 141: p. 337-350. 18. Wandell, B.A., Foundations of vision. 1995, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 19. Baylor, D.A., B.J. Nunn, and J.L. Schnapf, Spectral sensitivity of cones of the monkey Macaca fascicularis. J Physiol, 1987. 390: p. 145-60. 20. Loftus, G.R. and E. Ruthruff, A theory of visual information acquisition and visual memory with special application to intensity-duration trade-offs. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 1994. 20(1): p. 33-49.