Reconstruction of Subjective Surfaces from Occlusion Cues

  • Naoki Kogo
  • Christoph Strecha
  • Rik Fransen
  • Geert Caenen
  • Johan Wagemans
  • Luc Van Gool
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2525)


In the Kanizsa figure, an illusory central area and its contours are perceived. Replacing the pacman inducers with other shapes can significantly influence this effect. Psychophysical studies indicate that the determination of depth is a task that our visual system constantly conducts. We hypothesized that the illusion is due to the modification of the image according to the higher level depth interpretation. This idea was implemented in a feedback model based on a surface completion scheme. The relative depths, with their signs reflecting the polarity of the image, were determined from junctions by convolution of Gaussian derivative based filters, while a diffusion equation reconstructed the surfaces. The feedback loop was established by converting this depth map to modify the lightness of the image. This model created a central surface and extended the contours from the inducers. Results on a variety of figures were consistent with psychophysical experiments.


Relative Depth Illusory Contour Subjective Contour Visual Agnosia Junction Property 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Kanizsa, G.: Subjective Contours. Sci. Am. 234 (1976) 48–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Lesher, G.W.: Illusory Contours: Toward a neurally based perceptual theory. Psych. Bull. Riview 2 (1995) 279–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Dresp, B.: On “illusory” Contours and Their Functional Significance. Cahiers Psy. Cog. 16 (1997) 489–518Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Stevens, K.A.: Evidence Relating Subjective Contours and Interpretations Involving Interposition. Perception 12 (1983) 491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Brusell, E.M., Stober, S.R., Bodlinger, D.M.: Sensory Information and Subjective Contours. Am. J. Psychol. 90 (1977) 145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    de Weert, C.M.M.: Colour Contrast and Stereopsis. Vision Research 19 (1979) 555–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Mendola, J.D., Dale, A.M., Fischl, B., Liu, A.K., Tootell, R.B.H.: The Representation of Illusory and Real Contours in Human Cortical Visual Areas Revealed by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Nuerosci. 19 (1999) 8560–8572Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hubel, D.H., Wiesel, T.N.: Ferrier lecture. Functional Architecture of Macaque Monkey Visual Cortex. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 198 (1977) 1–59Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Huxlin, K.R., Saunders, R.C., Marchionini, D., Pham, H., Merigan, W.H.: Perceptual Deficits after Lesions of Inferotemporal Cortex in Macaques. Cerebral Cortex 10 (2000) 671–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Peterhans, E, von der Heydt, R.: Mechanisms of Contour Perception in Monkey Visual Cortex. II. J. Neurosci. 9 (1989) 1749–1763Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Mecaluso, E., Frith, C.D., Driver, J.: Modulation of Human Visual Cortex by Crossmodal Spatial Attention. Science 289 (2000) 1206–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Aleman, A., Rutten, G.M., Sitskoorn, M.M., Dautzenberg, G., Ramsey, N.F.: Activation of Striate Cortex in the Absence of Visual Stimulation:an FMRI Study of Synthesia Neuroreport 12 (2001) 2827–2830Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Hupé, J.M., James, A.C., Payne, B.R., Lomber, S.G., Girard, P., Bullier, J.: Cortical Feedback Improves Discrimination Between Figure and Background by V1, V2 and V3 Neurons. Nature 394 (1998) 784–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Wang, C., Waleszczyk, W.J., Burke, W., Dreher, B.: Modulatory Influence of Feedback Projections from Area 21a on Neuronal Activities in Striate Cortex of the Cat. Cerebral Cortex 10 (2000) 1217–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Gilchrist, A.L.: Perceived Lightness Depends on Perceived Spatial Arrangement. Science 195 (1977) 185–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Heitger, F., Hyde, R.V.D., Peterhans, E., Rosenthaler, L., Kubler, O.: Simulation of Neural Contour Mechanisms: Representing Anomalous Contours. Image. Vis. Comput. 16 (1998) 407–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Grossberg, S., Mingolla, E., Ross, W.D.: Visual Brain and Visual Perception: How Does the Cortex Do Perceptual Grouping? Trends Neruosci. 20 (1997) 106–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Kumaran, K., Geiger, D., Gurvits, L.: Illusory Surface Perception and Visual Organization. Network-Comp. Neural. 7 (1996) 33–60CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Williams, L., Hanson, A.: Perceptual Completion of Occluded Surfaces. Comput. Vis. Image. Understand. 64 (1996) 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Proesmans, M., Van Gool, L.: Grouping Based on Coupled Diffusion Maps. Lect. Notes. Comput. Sc. 1681 (1999) 196–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Naoki Kogo
    • 1
  • Christoph Strecha
    • 1
  • Rik Fransen
    • 1
  • Geert Caenen
    • 1
  • Johan Wagemans
    • 2
  • Luc Van Gool
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.ESAT/PSIKatholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations