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: 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.

The primal sketch revisited: locating and representing edges in human vision via Gaussian-derivative filtering

Marr's work offered guidelines on how to investigate vision (the theory - algorithm - implementation distinction), as well as specific proposals on how vision is done. Many of the latter have inevitably been superseded, but the approach was inspirational and remains so. Marr saw the computational study of vision as tightly linked to psychophysics and neurophysiology, but the last twenty years have seen some weakening of that integration. Because feature detection is a key stage in early human vision, we have returned to basic questions about representation of edges at coarse and fine scales. We describe an explicit model in the spirit of the primal sketch, but tightly constrained by psychophysical data. Results from two tasks (location-marking and blur-matching) point strongly to the central role played by second-derivative operators, as proposed by Marr and Hildreth. Edge location and blur are evaluated by finding the location and scale of the Gaussian-derivative `template' that best matches the second-derivative profile (`signature') of the edge. The system is scale-invariant, and accurately predicts blur-matching data for a wide variety of 1-D and 2-D images. By finding the best-fitting scale, it implements a form of local scale selection and circumvents the knotty problem of integrating filter outputs across scales. [Supported by BBSRC and the Wellcome Trust]

From filters to features:Scale-space analysis of edge and blur coding in human vision

To make vision possible, the visual nervous system must represent the most informative features in the light pattern captured by the eye. Here we use Gaussian scale-space theory to derive a multiscale model for edge analysis and we test it in perceptual experiments. At all scales there are two stages of spatial filtering. An odd-symmetric, Gaussian first derivative filter provides the input to a Gaussian second derivative filter. Crucially, the output at each stage is half-wave rectified before feeding forward to the next. This creates nonlinear channels selectively responsive to one edge polarity while suppressing spurious or "phantom" edges. The two stages have properties analogous to simple and complex cells in the visual cortex. Edges are found as peaks in a scale-space response map that is the output of the second stage. The position and scale of the peak response identify the location and blur of the edge. The model predicts remarkably accurately our results on human perception of edge location and blur for a wide range of luminance profiles, including the surprising finding that blurred edges look sharper when their length is made shorter. The model enhances our understanding of early vision by integrating computational, physiological, and psychophysical approaches. © ARVO.

Template model for blur coding: the role of early nonlinearity in edge segmentation

We describe a template model for perception of edge blur and identify a crucial early nonlinearity in this process. The main principle is to spatially filter the edge image to produce a 'signature', and then find which of a set of templates best fits that signature. Psychophysical blur-matching data strongly support the use of a second-derivative signature, coupled to Gaussian first-derivative templates. The spatial scale of the best-fitting template signals the edge blur. This model predicts blur-matching data accurately for a wide variety of Gaussian and non-Gaussian edges, but it suffers a bias when edges of opposite sign come close together in sine-wave gratings and other periodic images. This anomaly suggests a second general principle: the region of an image that 'belongs' to a given edge should have a consistent sign or direction of luminance gradient. Segmentation of the gradient profile into regions of common sign is achieved by implementing the second-derivative 'signature' operator as two first-derivative operators separated by a half-wave rectifier. This multiscale system of nonlinear filters predicts perceived blur accurately for periodic and aperiodic waveforms. We also outline its extension to 2-D images and infer the 2-D shape of the receptive fields.

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.

Perceiving edge blur: Gaussian-derivative filtering and a rectifying nonlinearity

We studied the visual mechanisms that encode edge blur in images. Our previous work suggested that the visual system spatially differentiates the luminance profile twice to create the `signature' of the edge, and then evaluates the spatial scale of this signature profile by applying Gaussian derivative templates of different sizes. The scale of the best-fitting template indicates the blur of the edge. In blur-matching experiments, a staircase procedure was used to adjust the blur of a comparison edge (40% contrast, 0.3 s duration) until it appeared to match the blur of test edges at different contrasts (5% - 40%) and blurs (6 - 32 min of arc). Results showed that lower-contrast edges looked progressively sharper. We also added a linear luminance gradient to blurred test edges. When the added gradient was of opposite polarity to the edge gradient, it made the edge look progressively sharper. Both effects can be explained quantitatively by the action of a half-wave rectifying nonlinearity that sits between the first and second (linear) differentiating stages. This rectifier was introduced to account for a range of other effects on perceived blur (Barbieri-Hesse and Georgeson, 2002 Perception 31 Supplement, 54), but it readily predicts the influence of the negative ramp. The effect of contrast arises because the rectifier has a threshold: it not only suppresses negative values but also small positive values. At low contrasts, more of the gradient profile falls below threshold and its effective spatial scale shrinks in size, leading to perceived sharpening.