Mach bands and multiscale models of spatial vision:the role of first, second, and third derivative operators in encoding bars and edges

Ernst Mach observed that light or dark bands could be seen at abrupt changes of luminance gradient in the absence of peaks or troughs in luminance. Many models of feature detection share the idea that bars, lines, and Mach bands are found at peaks and troughs in the output of even-symmetric spatial filters. Our experiments assessed the appearance of Mach bands (position and width) and the probability of seeing them on a novel set of generalized Gaussian edges. Mach band probability was mainly determined by the shape of the luminance profile and increased with the sharpness of its corners, controlled by a single parameter (n). Doubling or halving the size of the images had no significant effect. Variations in contrast (20%-80%) and duration (50-300 ms) had relatively minor effects. These results rule out the idea that Mach bands depend simply on the amplitude of the second derivative, but a multiscale model, based on Gaussian-smoothed first- and second-derivative filtering, can account accurately for the probability and perceived spatial layout of the bands. A key idea is that Mach band visibility depends on the ratio of second- to first-derivative responses at peaks in the second-derivative scale-space map. This ratio is approximately scale-invariant and increases with the sharpness of the corners of the luminance ramp, as observed. The edges of Mach bands pose a surprisingly difficult challenge for models of edge detection, but a nonlinear third-derivative operation is shown to predict the locations of Mach band edges strikingly well. Mach bands thus shed new light on the role of multiscale filtering systems in feature coding. © 2012 ARVO.

Mach edges: local features predicted by 3rd derivative spatial filtering

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 (1st derivative) filter, or as zero-crossings in the 2nd derivative (ZCs). We tested those ideas using a stimulus that has no local peaks of gradient and no ZCs, at any scale. The stimulus profile is analogous to the Mach ramp, but it is the luminance gradient (not the absolute luminance) that increases as a linear ramp between two plateaux; the luminance profile is a blurred triangle-wave. For all image-blurs tested, observers marked edges at or close to the corner points in the gradient profile, even though these were not gradient maxima. These Mach edges correspond to peaks and troughs in the 3rd derivative. Thus Mach edges are inconsistent with many standard edge-detection schemes, but are nicely predicted by a recent model that finds edge points with a 2-stage sequence of 1st then 2nd derivative operators, each followed by a half-wave rectifier.

Early spatial vision:a view through two eyes

Simple features such as edges are the building blocks of spatial vision, and so I ask: how arevisual features and their properties (location, blur and contrast) derived from the responses ofspatial filters in early vision; how are these elementary visual signals combined across the twoeyes; and when are they not combined? Our psychophysical evidence from blur-matchingexperiments strongly supports a model in which edges are found at the spatial peaks ofresponse of odd-symmetric receptive fields (gradient operators), and their blur B is givenby the spatial scale of the most active operator. This model can explain some surprisingaspects of blur perception: edges look sharper when they are low contrast, and when theirlength is made shorter. Our experiments on binocular fusion of blurred edges show that singlevision is maintained for disparities up to about 2.5*B, followed by diplopia or suppression ofone edge at larger disparities. Edges of opposite polarity never fuse. Fusion may be served bybinocular combination of monocular gradient operators, but that combination - involvingbinocular summation and interocular suppression - is not completely understood.In particular, linear summation (supported by psychophysical and physiological evidence)predicts that fused edges should look more blurred with increasing disparity (up to 2.5*B),but results surprisingly show that edge blur appears constant across all disparities, whetherfused or diplopic. Finally, when edges of very different blur are shown to the left and righteyes fusion may not occur, but perceived blur is not simply given by the sharper edge, nor bythe higher contrast. Instead, it is the ratio of contrast to blur that matters: the edge with theAbstracts 1237steeper gradient dominates perception. The early stages of binocular spatial vision speak thelanguage of luminance gradients.