Advertisement

Statistics of Second Order Multi-modal Feature Events and Their Exploitation in Biological and Artificial Visual Systems

  • Norbert Krüger
  • Florentin Wörgötter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2525)

Abstract

In this work we investigate the multi-modal statistics of natural image sequences looking at the modalities orientation, color, optic flow and contrast transition.It turns out that second order interdependencies of local line detectors can be related to the Gestalt law collinearity. Furthermore we can show that statistical interdependencies increase significantly when we look not at orientation only but also at other modalities.

The occurrence of illusionary contour processing (in which the Gestalt law ‘collinearity’ is tightly involved) at a late stage during the development of the human visual system (see, e.g., [3]) makes it plausible that mechanisms involved in the processing of Gestalt laws depend on visual experience about the underlying structures in visual data.This also suggests a formalization of Gestalt laws in artificial systems depending on statistical measurements.We discuss the usage of statistical interdependencies measured in this work within an artificial visual systems and show first results.

Keywords

Optic Flow Human Visual System Natural Image Image Patch Subjective Contour 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    J. Aloimonos and D. Shulman. Integration of Visual Modules—An extension of the Marr Paradigm. Academic Press, London, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A.J. Bell and T. Sejnowski.Edges are the ‘independent components’ of natural Scenes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 9:831–837, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    B.I. Bertenthal, J.J. Campos, and M.M. Haith. Development of visual organisation: The perception of subjective contours. Child Development, 51(4):1072–1080, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    R.C.K. Chung and R. Nevatia.Use of monucular groupings and occlusion analysis in a hierarchical stereo System. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 62(3):245–268, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Elder and R.M. Goldberg. Inferential reliability of contour grouping cues in natural images. Perception Supplement, 27, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Felsberg and G. Sommer.The monogenic Signal. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 41(12), 2001.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M.S. Gazzaniga. The Cognitive Neuroscience. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W.S. Geisler, J.S. Perry, B.J. Super, and D.P. Gallogly. Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vision Research, 41:711–724, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    G. Guy and G. Medioni. Inferring global perceptual contours from local features. International Journal of Computer Vision, 20:113–133, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    F. Heitger, R.von der Heydt, E. Peterhans, L. Rosenthaler, and O. Kübler.Simulation of neural contour mechanisms: representing anomalous contours. Image and Vision Computing, 16:407–421, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    D.D. Hoffman, editor. Visual Intelligence: How we create what we see. W.W. Norton and Company, 1980.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    N. Krüger. Collinearity and parallelism are statistically significant second order relations of complex cell responses. Neural Processing Letters, 8(2):117–129, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    N. Krüger and F. Wörgötter. Different degree of genetical prestructuring in the ontogenesis of visual abilities based on deterministic and statistical regularities. Proceedings of the Workshop On Growing up Artifacts that Live SAB 2002, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    N. Krüger and F. Wörgötter. Multimodal estimation of collinearity and parallelism in natural image sequences to appear in Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    H.-H. Nagel.On the estimation of optic flow: Relations between different approaches and some new results. Artificial Intelligence, 33:299–324, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    B.A. Olshausen and D. Field. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature, 381:607–609, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    W.A. Phillips and W. Singer. In search of common foundations for cortical processing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20(4):657–682, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Posch. Perzeptives Gruppieren und Bildanalyse. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Bielefeld, Deutscher Universitäts Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Sarkax and K.L. Boyer. Computing Perceptual Organization in Computer Vision. World Scientific, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    M. Sigman, G.A. Cecchi, C.D. Gilbert, and M.O. Magnasco.On a common circle: Natura1 Scenes and gestalt rules. PNAS, 98(4):1935–1949, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    E.P. Simoncelli and B.A. Ohlshausen.Natural image statistics and neural representations. Anual Reviews of Neuroscience, 24:1193–1216, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    C. Zetzsche and G. Krieger.Nonlinear mechanisms and higher-order statistics in biologial vision and electronie image processing: review and perspectives. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 10(1):56–99, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Krüger
    • 1
  • Florentin Wörgötter
    • 1
  1. 1.University of StirlingScotland

Personalised recommendations