Mach edges: a critical test of the nonlinear 3rd derivative model for edge-detection

Feature detection is a crucial stage of visual processing. In previous feature-marking experiments we found that peaks in the 3rd derivative of the luminance profile can signify edges where there are no 1st derivative peaks nor 2nd derivative zero-crossings (Wallis and George 'Mach edges' (the edges of Mach bands) were nicely predicted by a new nonlinear model based on 3rd derivative filtering. As a critical test of the model, we now use a new class of stimuli, formed by adding a linear luminance ramp to the blurred triangle waves used previously. The ramp has no effect on the second or higher derivatives, but the nonlinear model predicts a shift from seeing two edges to seeing only one edge as the added ramp gradient increases. In experiment 1, subjects judged whether one or two edges were visible on each trial. In experiment 2, subjects used a cursor to mark perceived edges and bars. The position and polarity of the marked edges were close to model predictions. Both experiments produced the predicted shift from two to one Mach edge, but the shift was less complete than predicted. We conclude that the model is a useful predictor of edge perception, but needs some modification.

Mach edges: a key role for 3rd derivative filters in spatial vision

Edges are key points of information in visual scenes. One important class of models supposes that edges correspond to the steepest parts of the luminance profile, implying that they can be found as peaks and troughs in the response of a gradient (first-derivative) filter, or as zero-crossings (ZCs) in the second-derivative. A variety of multi-scale models are based on this idea. We tested this approach by devising a stimulus that has no local peaks of gradient and no ZCs, at any scale. Our stimulus profile is analogous to the classic Mach-band stimulus, but it is the local luminance gradient (not the absolute luminance) that increases as a linear ramp between two plateaux. The luminance profile is a smoothed triangle wave and is obtained by integrating the gradient profile. Subjects used a cursor to mark the position and polarity of perceived edges. For all the ramp-widths tested, observers marked edges at or close to the corner points in the gradient profile, even though these were not gradient maxima. These new Mach edges correspond to peaks and troughs in the third-derivative. They are analogous to Mach bands - light and dark bars are seen where there are no luminance peaks but there are peaks in the second derivative. Here, peaks in the third derivative were seen as light-to-dark edges, troughs as dark-to-light edges. Thus Mach edges are inconsistent with many standard edge detectors, but are nicely predicted by a new model that uses a (nonlinear) third-derivative operator to find edge points.

Edges and bars: where do people see features in 1-D images?

There have been two main approaches to feature detection in human and computer vision - based either on the luminance distribution and its spatial derivatives, or on the spatial distribution of local contrast energy. Thus, bars and edges might arise from peaks of luminance and luminance gradient respectively, or bars and edges might be found at peaks of local energy, where local phases are aligned across spatial frequency. This basic issue of definition is important because it guides more detailed models and interpretations of early vision. Which approach better describes the perceived positions of features in images? We used the class of 1-D images defined by Morrone and Burr in which the amplitude spectrum is that of a (partially blurred) square-wave and all Fourier components have a common phase. Observers used a cursor to mark where bars and edges were seen for different test phases (Experiment 1) or judged the spatial alignment of contours that had different phases (e.g. 0 degrees and 45 degrees ; Experiment 2). The feature positions defined by both tasks shifted systematically to the left or right according to the sign of the phase offset, increasing with the degree of blur. These shifts were well predicted by the location of luminance peaks (bars) and gradient peaks (edges), but not by energy peaks which (by design) predicted no shift at all. These results encourage models based on a Gaussian-derivative framework, but do not support the idea that human vision uses points of phase alignment to find local, first-order features. Nevertheless, we argue that both approaches are presently incomplete and a better understanding of early vision may combine insights from both. (C)2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mach Bands: multi-scale spatial filtering and co-operative coding of edges and bars

Perception of Mach bands may be explained by spatial filtering ('lateral inhibition') that can be approximated by 2nd derivative computation, and several alternative models have been proposed. To distinguish between them, we used a novel set of ‘generalised Gaussian’ images, in which the sharp ramp-plateau junction of the Mach ramp was replaced by smoother transitions. The images ranged from a slightly blurred Mach ramp to a Gaussian edge and beyond, and also included a sine-wave edge. The probability of seeing Mach Bands increased with the (relative) sharpness of the junction, but was largely independent of absolute spatial scale. These data did not fit the predictions of MIRAGE, nor 2nd derivative computation at a single fine scale. In experiment 2, observers used a cursor to mark features on the same set of images. Data on perceived position of Mach bands did not support the local energy model. Perceived width of Mach bands was poorly explained by a single-scale edge detection model, despite its previous success with Mach edges (Wallis & Georgeson, 2009, Vision Research, 49, 1886-1893). A more successful model used separate (odd and even) scale-space filtering for edges and bars, local peak detection to find candidate features, and the MAX operator to compare odd- and even-filter response maps (Georgeson, VSS 2006, Journal of Vision 6(6), 191a). Mach bands are seen when there is a local peak in the even-filter (bar) response map, AND that peak value exceeds corresponding responses in the odd-filter (edge) maps.

Looking under the bonnet:factors affecting student adoption of e-learning systems in Jordan

The primary questions addressed in this paper are the following: what are the factors that affect students’ adoption of an e-learning system and what are the relationships among these factors? This paper investigates and identifies some of the major factors affecting students’ adoption of an e-learning system in a university in Jordan. E-learning adoption is approached from the information systems acceptance point of view. This suggests that a prior condition for learning effectively using e-learning systems is that students must actually use them. Thus, a greater knowledge of the factors that affect IT adoption and their interrelationships is a pre-cursor to a better understanding of student acceptance of e-learning systems. In turn, this will help and guide those who develop, implement, and deliver e-learning systems. In this study, an extended version of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was developed to investigate the underlying factors that influence students’ decisions to use an e-learning system. The TAM was populated using data gathered from a survey of 486 undergraduate students using the Moodle based e-learning system at the Arab Open University. The model was estimated using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). A path model was developed to analyze the relationships between the factors to explain students’ adoption of the e-learning system. Whilst findings support existing literature about prior experience affecting perceptions, they also point to surprising group effects, which may merit future exploration.