Closure—Hierarchies of Gestalten

  • Eckart MichaelsenEmail author
  • Jochen Meidow
Part of the Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition book series (ACVPR)


Gestalt perception comes in hierarchies. Human observers are quick and reliable in reconstructing from pictorial data constructions like a row made of reflection symmetric parts, where each wing of the parts is again a lattice of reflection symmetric sub-parts, etc. Machines hardly compete with these skills up to now, in particular when projection distorted the patterns, or occlusion deleted some parts of it. This chapter is meant as an attempt to code machines so that they become better. To this end, the combinatorial nature of such “Gestalt sentences” must first be understood. Instead of the traditional way of defining grammars, here an algebraic view is taken, understanding what used to be a “pattern language” as the closure of the Gestalt Algebra. The operations of this algebra are the Gestalt operations given in the previous chapters. Of course such closure is infinite, but we can prove that almost all Gestalten in it have assessments close to zero. The set of hierarchical Gestalten assessed better than an \(\epsilon >0\) and resulting from a finite set of primitives is finite. Still, this set can be very huge. In particular if we use the operations simply, i.e., only taking into account the features of immediately preceding Gestalten. However, in this chapter we also present ways to propagate the Gestalt laws through the hierarchy, if necessary, down to the preceding primitives. This greatly reduces numbers and efforts. The literature on symmetry recognition sees a problem in the non-local nature of, e.g., reflection symmetry. Search for correspondence cannot be bounded by less than quadratic complexity. Here hierarchy can actually help. Correspondence between very distant small objects is established by use of hierarchy. This can be implemented in sub-quadratic complexity. Thus, what looks at first glance like a combinatorial nightmare, turns out to be a proposal for the solution of an old and hard combinatorial correspondence problem.


  1. 1.
    Rosenfeld A (1979) Picture languages. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fu KS (1974) Syntactic methods in pattern recognition. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Narasimhan R (1964) Labeling schemata and syntactic description of pictures. Inf Control 7:151–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IAPR. Technical committees of the international association for pattern recognition. Last accessed September 2018
  5. 5.
    Minsky M, Papert SA (1987) Perceptrons, new edition. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Milgram DL, Rosenfeld A (1972) A note on grammars with coordinates. In: Graphic languages, pp 187–194Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marriott K (1998) Visual language theory. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Malcev AI (1973) Algebraic systems. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niemann H (1990) Pattern analysis and understanding. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michaelsen E, Yashina VV (2014) Simple gestalt algebra. Pattern Recogn Image Anal 24(4):542–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michaelsen E (2014) Gestalt algebra-a proposal for the formalization of gestalt perception and rendering. Symmetry 6(3):566–577MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loy G, Eklundh J (2006) Detecting symmetry and symmetric constellations of features. In: European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pp II:508–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michaelsen E, Arens M (2017) Hierarchical grouping using gestalt assessments. In: CVPR 2017, workshops, detecting symmetry in the wildGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matsuyama T, Hwang VS-S (1990) SIGMA, A knowledge-based aerial image understanding system. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jurkiewicz K, Stilla U (1992) Understanding urban structure. In: ISPRSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Michaelsen E (2012) Perceptual grouping of row-gestalts in aerial NIR images of urban terrain. In: PRRSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Funk C, Lee S, Oswald MR, Tsokas S, Shen W, Cohen A, Dickinson S, Liu Y (2017) 2017 iccv challenge: detecting symmetry in the wild. In: ICCV 2017, workshopsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Förstner W, Wrobel B (2016) Photogrammetric computer vision. SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer IOSBEttlingenGermany

Personalised recommendations