Summary
Recent years have seen a proliferation of new theoretical models of visual cue combination, especially in the domain of depth perception. We simulated three models of visual cue combination: a weak fusion model, a modified weak fusion model, and a strong fusion model. Their relative strengths and weaknesses are evaluated on the basis of their performances on the tasks of judging the depth and shape of an ellipse. The models differ in the amount of interaction that they permit between the cues of stereo, motion, and vergence angle. The results suggest that the constrained nonlinear interaction of the modified weak model allows better performance than either the linear interaction of the weak model or the unconstrained nonlinear interaction of the strong model. Additional results indicate that the modified weak model’s weighting of motion and stereo cues is dependent upon the task, the viewing distance, and to a lesser degree the noise model. Although the dependencies are sensible from a computational viewpoint, they are sometimes inconsistent with experimental data. Overall, the simulation results suggest that, relative to the weak and strong models, the modified weak fusion model is a good candidate model of the combination of motion, stereo, and vergence angle cues, though the results also highlight areas in which this model needs modification or further elaboration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
R.A. Abrams, and J.Z. Landgraf. Differential use of distance and location information for spatial localization. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 349–359, 1990.
D.H. Ballard. Parameter nets. Artificial Intelligence, 22, 235–267, 1984.
H.B. Barlow. Why have multiple cortical areas? Vision Research, 26, 81–90, 1986.
A. Blake, H.H. Bülthoff, and D. Sheinberg. Shape from texture: Ideal observers and human psychophysics. Vision Research, 33, 1723–1737, 1993.
M.F. Bradshaw, A. Glennerster, and B.J. Rogers. The effect of display size on disparity scaling from differential perspective and vergence cues. Vision Research, 36, 1255–1264, 1996.
N. Bruno, and J.E. Cutting. Minimodularity and the perception of layout. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 117, 161–170, 1988.
H.H. Bülthoff, and H.A. Mallot. Integration of depth modules: Stereo and shading. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 5, 1749–1758, 1988.
Y. Chauvin, and D. E. Rumelhart. Backpropagation: Theory, Architectures, and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995.
J. Clark, and A.L. Yuille. Data Fusion for Sensory Information Processing Systems. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.
A. Cowey. Why are there so many visual areas? In F.O. Schmidt, F.G. Warden, G. Adelman, and S.G. Dennis (Eds.), The Organization of the Cerebral Cortex. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.
J.E. Cutting, and P.M. Vishton. Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein and S. Rogers (Eds.), Perception of Space and Motion. San Diego: Academic Press, 1995.
B.A. Dosher, G. Sperling, G., and S. Wurst. Tradeoffs between stereopsis and proximity luminance covariance as determinants of perceived 3D structure. Vision Research, 26, 973–990, 1986.
F.H. Durgin, D.R. Proffitt, J.T. Olsen., and K.S. Reinke. Comparing depth from motion with depth from binocular disparity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 679–699, 1995.
M. Farah. Visual Agnosia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990.
I. Fine and R.A. Jacobs. Modeling the combination of motion, stereo, and vergence angle cues to visual depth. Submitted for publication, 1998.
A. Glennester, B.J. Rogers, and M.F. Bradshaw. The constancy of depth and surface shape for stereoscopic surfaces under more naturalistic viewing conditions. Perception, 22 (supplement). 118, 1993.
W.C. Gogel. A theory of phenomenal geometry and its applications. Perception and Psychophysics, 48, 105–123, 1990.
C.G. Gross, and M.S.A. Graziano. Multiple pathways for representing visual space. In T. Inui and J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVI: Information Integration in Perception and Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
L.S. Jakobson, Y.M. Archibald, D.P. Carey, and M.A. Goodale. A kinematic analysis of reaching and grasping movements in a patient recovering from optic ataxia. Neuropsychologia, 3, 803–809, 1991.
E.B. Johnston. Systematic deviations of shape from stereopsis. Vision Research, 31, 1351–1360, 1991.
E.B. Johnston, B.G. Cumming, and M.S. Landy. Integration of motion and stereopsis cues. Vision Research, 34, 2259–2275, 1994.
M.S. Landy, L.T. Maloney, E.B. Johnston, and M. Young. Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: In defense of weak fusion. Vision Research, 35, 389–412, 1995.
D. Marr. Vision. San Francisco: Freeman, 1982.
M. Mishkin, L.G. Ungerleider, and K.A. Macko, Object vision and spatial vision: Two cortical pathways. Trends in Neurosciences, 6, 414–417, 1983.
M. Nawrot, and R. Blake. On the perceptual identity of dynamic stereopsis and kinetic depth. Vision Research, 33, 1561–1571, 1993.
J.W. Philbeck, and J.M. Loomis. A comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 72–85, 1997.
T. Poggio, V. Torre, and C. Koch. Computational vision and regularization theory. Nature, 317, 314–319, 1985.
B.J. Rogers, and T.S. Collett. The appearance of surfaces specified by motion parallax and binocular disparity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 697–717, 1989.
B. Rogers and M. Graham. Similarities between motion parallax and stereopsis in human depth perception. Vision Research, 22, 261–270, 1982.
D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton, and J.L McClelland. A general framework for parallel distributed processing. In D.E. Rumelhart, J.L. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986.
D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton, and R.J. Williams. Learning internal representations by error propagation. In D.E. Rumelhart, J.L. McClelland, and the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smolensky, P., Mozer, M.C., and Rumelhart, D.E. Mathematical Perspectives on Neural Networks. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996.
J.S. Tittle, J.T. Todd, V.T. Perotti, and J.F. Norman. Systematic distortion of perceived three-dimensional structure from motion and binocular stereopsis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 663–678, 1995.
Y. Trotter, S. Celebrini, B. Stricanne, S. Thorpe, M. Imbert. Modulation of stereoscopic processing in primate area V1 by the viewing distance. Science, 257, 1279–1281, 1992.
J. Turner, M.L. Braunstein, and G.J. Anderson. The relationship between binocular disparity and motion parallax in surface detection. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 370–380, 1997.
A.L. Yuille, and H.H. Bülthoff. Bayesian decision theory and psychophysics. In D.C. Knill and W. Richards (Eds.), Perception as Bayesian Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sharkey, A.J.C. (1999). A Comparison of Visual Cue Combination Models. In: Sharkey, A.J.C. (eds) Combining Artificial Neural Nets. Perspectives in Neural Computing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0793-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0793-4_8
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-004-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0793-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive