We present a model of human preattentive texture perception. This model consists of three stages: (1) convolution of the image with a bank of even-symmetric linear filters followed by half-wave rectification to give a set of responses modeling outputs of V1 simple cells, (2) inhibition, localized in space, within and among the neural-response profiles that results in the suppression of weak responses when there are strong responses at the same or nearby locations, and (3) texture-boundary detection by using wide odd-symmetric mechanisms. Our model can predict the salience of texture boundaries in any arbitrary gray-scale image. A computer implementation of this model has been tested on many of the classic stimuli from psychophysical literature. Quantitative predictions of the degree of discriminability of different texture pairs match well with experimental measurements of discriminability in human observers.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Citation lists with outbound citation links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
The symbol * indicates that a side peak of the texture gradient was higher than the reported central peak. Because of differences in the scales used, the three columns should be compared only by the rank ordering of discriminability. The rank order of discriminability for the predicted data matches both other data rankings exactly. The L M and LL, LL textures have been invented by Williams and Julesz as a counterexample to purely linear theories.19 Our algorithm correctly ranks the L M pair within the most discriminable textures and the LL ML pair within the least discriminable ones. The discriminability of the + ○ texture given by Krose saturates his psychophysical scale (top value, zero standard deviation), so it cannot be compared quantitatively with the other discriminability figures (standard deviation ranging between 6.7 and 11.7); n.a., not available. Also compare Fig. 8.
Table 4
Comparison of the Predictions from Models A-D with Segmentability Measurements for Two Sets of Experimental Dataa
The symbol * indicates that a side peak of the texture gradient was higher than the reported central peak. Because of differences in the scales used, the three columns should be compared only by the rank ordering of discriminability. The rank order of discriminability for the predicted data matches both other data rankings exactly. The L M and LL, LL textures have been invented by Williams and Julesz as a counterexample to purely linear theories.19 Our algorithm correctly ranks the L M pair within the most discriminable textures and the LL ML pair within the least discriminable ones. The discriminability of the + ○ texture given by Krose saturates his psychophysical scale (top value, zero standard deviation), so it cannot be compared quantitatively with the other discriminability figures (standard deviation ranging between 6.7 and 11.7); n.a., not available. Also compare Fig. 8.
Table 4
Comparison of the Predictions from Models A-D with Segmentability Measurements for Two Sets of Experimental Dataa