A Neural Model of Surface Perception: Lightness, Anchoring, and Filling-in

This article develops a neural model of how the visual system processes natural images under variable illumination conditions to generate surface lightness percepts. Previous models have clarified how the brain can compute the relative contrast of images from variably illuminate scenes. How the brain determines an absolute lightness scale that "anchors" percepts of surface lightness to us the full dynamic range of neurons remains an unsolved problem. Lightness anchoring properties include articulation, insulation, configuration, and are effects. The model quantatively simulates these and other lightness data such as discounting the illuminant, the double brilliant illusion, lightness constancy and contrast, Mondrian contrast constancy, and the Craik-O'Brien-Cornsweet illusion. The model also clarifies the functional significance for lightness perception of anatomical and neurophysiological data, including gain control at retinal photoreceptors, and spatioal contrast adaptation at the negative feedback circuit between the inner segment of photoreceptors and interacting horizontal cells. The model retina can hereby adjust its sensitivity to input intensities ranging from dim moonlight to dazzling sunlight. A later model cortical processing stages, boundary representations gate the filling-in of surface lightness via long-range horizontal connections. Variants of this filling-in mechanism run 100-1000 times faster than diffusion mechanisms of previous biological filling-in models, and shows how filling-in can occur at realistic speeds. A new anchoring mechanism called the Blurred-Highest-Luminance-As-White (BHLAW) rule helps simulate how surface lightness becomes sensitive to the spatial scale of objects in a scene. The model is also able to process natural images under variable lighting conditions.

Laminar Cortical Dynamics of Visual Form and Motion Interactions During Coherent Object Motion Perception

How do visual form and motion processes cooperate to compute object motion when each process separately is insufficient? A 3D FORMOTION model specifies how 3D boundary representations, which separate figures from backgrounds within cortical area V2, capture motion signals at the appropriate depths in MT; how motion signals in MT disambiguate boundaries in V2 via MT-to-Vl-to-V2 feedback; how sparse feature tracking signals are amplified; and how a spatially anisotropic motion grouping process propagates across perceptual space via MT-MST feedback to integrate feature-tracking and ambiguous motion signals to determine a global object motion percept. Simulated data include: the degree of motion coherence of rotating shapes observed through apertures, the coherent vs. element motion percepts separated in depth during the chopsticks illusion, and the rigid vs. non-rigid appearance of rotating ellipses.

Laminar Cortical Dynamics of Visual Form and Motion Interactions During Coherent Object Motion Perception

How do visual form and motion processes cooperate to compute object motion when each process separately is insufficient? Consider, for example, a deer moving behind a bush. Here the partially occluded fragments of motion signals available to an observer must be coherently grouped into the motion of a single object. A 3D FORMOTION model comprises five important functional interactions involving the brain’s form and motion systems that address such situations. Because the model’s stages are analogous to areas of the primate visual system, we refer to the stages by corresponding anatomical names. In one of these functional interactions, 3D boundary representations, in which figures are separated from their backgrounds, are formed in cortical area V2. These depth-selective V2 boundaries select motion signals at the appropriate depths in MT via V2-to-MT signals. In another, motion signals in MT disambiguate locally incomplete or ambiguous boundary signals in V2 via MT-to-V1-to-V2 feedback. The third functional property concerns resolution of the aperture problem along straight moving contours by propagating the influence of unambiguous motion signals generated at contour terminators or corners. Here, sparse “feature tracking signals” from, e.g., line ends, are amplified to overwhelm numerically superior ambiguous motion signals along line segment interiors. In the fourth, a spatially anisotropic motion grouping process takes place across perceptual space via MT-MST feedback to integrate veridical feature-tracking and ambiguous motion signals to determine a global object motion percept. The fifth property uses the MT-MST feedback loop to convey an attentional priming signal from higher brain areas back to V1 and V2. The model's use of mechanisms such as divisive normalization, endstopping, cross-orientation inhibition, and longrange cooperation is described. Simulated data include: the degree of motion coherence of rotating shapes observed through apertures, the coherent vs. element motion percepts separated in depth during the chopsticks illusion, and the rigid vs. non-rigid appearance of rotating ellipses.