Cargando…
What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception
Research in lightness perception centers on understanding the prior assumptions and processing strategies the visual system uses to parse the retinal intensity distribution (the proximal stimulus) into the surface reflectance and illumination components of the scene (the distal stimulus—ground truth...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25954181 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00205 |
_version_ | 1782367654464454656 |
---|---|
author | Blakeslee, Barbara McCourt, Mark E. |
author_facet | Blakeslee, Barbara McCourt, Mark E. |
author_sort | Blakeslee, Barbara |
collection | PubMed |
description | Research in lightness perception centers on understanding the prior assumptions and processing strategies the visual system uses to parse the retinal intensity distribution (the proximal stimulus) into the surface reflectance and illumination components of the scene (the distal stimulus—ground truth). It is agreed that the visual system must compare different regions of the visual image to solve this inverse problem; however, the nature of the comparisons and the mechanisms underlying them are topics of intense debate. Perceptual illusions are of value because they reveal important information about these visual processing mechanisms. We propose a framework for lightness research that resolves confusions and paradoxes in the literature, and provides insight into the mechanisms the visual system employs to tackle the inverse problem. The main idea is that much of the debate and confusion in the literature stems from the fact that lightness, defined as apparent reflectance, is underspecified and refers to three different types of judgments that are not comparable. Under stimulus conditions containing a visible illumination component, such as a shadow boundary, observers can distinguish and match three independent dimensions of achromatic experience: apparent intensity (brightness), apparent local intensity ratio (brightness-contrast), and apparent reflectance (lightness). In the absence of a visible illumination boundary, however, achromatic vision reduces to two dimensions and, depending on stimulus conditions and observer instructions, judgments of lightness are identical to judgments of brightness or brightness-contrast. Furthermore, because lightness judgments are based on different information under different conditions, they can differ greatly in their degree of difficulty and in their accuracy. This may, in part, explain the large variability in lightness constancy across studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4405616 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44056162015-05-07 What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception Blakeslee, Barbara McCourt, Mark E. Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Research in lightness perception centers on understanding the prior assumptions and processing strategies the visual system uses to parse the retinal intensity distribution (the proximal stimulus) into the surface reflectance and illumination components of the scene (the distal stimulus—ground truth). It is agreed that the visual system must compare different regions of the visual image to solve this inverse problem; however, the nature of the comparisons and the mechanisms underlying them are topics of intense debate. Perceptual illusions are of value because they reveal important information about these visual processing mechanisms. We propose a framework for lightness research that resolves confusions and paradoxes in the literature, and provides insight into the mechanisms the visual system employs to tackle the inverse problem. The main idea is that much of the debate and confusion in the literature stems from the fact that lightness, defined as apparent reflectance, is underspecified and refers to three different types of judgments that are not comparable. Under stimulus conditions containing a visible illumination component, such as a shadow boundary, observers can distinguish and match three independent dimensions of achromatic experience: apparent intensity (brightness), apparent local intensity ratio (brightness-contrast), and apparent reflectance (lightness). In the absence of a visible illumination boundary, however, achromatic vision reduces to two dimensions and, depending on stimulus conditions and observer instructions, judgments of lightness are identical to judgments of brightness or brightness-contrast. Furthermore, because lightness judgments are based on different information under different conditions, they can differ greatly in their degree of difficulty and in their accuracy. This may, in part, explain the large variability in lightness constancy across studies. Frontiers Media S.A. 2015-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4405616/ /pubmed/25954181 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00205 Text en Copyright © 2015 Blakeslee and McCourt. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Blakeslee, Barbara McCourt, Mark E. What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception |
title | What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception |
title_full | What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception |
title_fullStr | What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception |
title_full_unstemmed | What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception |
title_short | What visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception |
title_sort | what visual illusions tell us about underlying neural mechanisms and observer strategies for tackling the inverse problem of achromatic perception |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4405616/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25954181 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00205 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT blakesleebarbara whatvisualillusionstellusaboutunderlyingneuralmechanismsandobserverstrategiesfortacklingtheinverseproblemofachromaticperception AT mccourtmarke whatvisualillusionstellusaboutunderlyingneuralmechanismsandobserverstrategiesfortacklingtheinverseproblemofachromaticperception |