Blur adaptation explained by a norm-based model of contrast adaptation

Adapting to blurred images makes in-focus images look too sharp, and vice-versa (Webster et al, 2002 Nature Neuroscience 5 839 - 840). We asked how such blur adaptation is related to contrast adaptation. Georgeson (1985 Spatial Vision 1 103 - 112) found that grating contrast adaptation followed a subtractive rule: perceived (matched) contrast of a grating was fairly well predicted by subtracting some fraction k(~0.3) of the adapting contrast from the test contrast. Here we apply that rule to the responses of a set of spatial filters at different scales and orientations. Blur is encoded by the pattern of filter response magnitudes over scale. We tested two versions - the 'norm model' and 'fatigue model' - against blur-matching data obtained after adaptation to sharpened, in-focus or blurred images. In the fatigue model, filter responses are simply reduced by exposure to the adapter. In the norm model, (a) the visual system is pre-adapted to a focused world and (b) discrepancy between observed and expected responses to the experimental adapter leads to additional reduction (or enhancement) of filter responses during experimental adaptation. The two models are closely related, but only the norm model gave a satisfactory account of results across the four experiments analysed, with one free parameter k. This model implies that the visual system is pre-adapted to focused images, that adapting to in-focus or blank images produces no change in adaptation, and that adapting to sharpened or blurred images changes the state of adaptation, leading to changes in perceived blur or sharpness.

Shading and texture:Separate information channels with a common adaptation mechanism?

We outline a scheme for the way in which early vision may handle information about shading (luminance modulation, LM) and texture (contrast modulation, CM). Previous work on the detection of gratings has found no sub-threshold summation, and no cross-adaptation, between LM and CM patterns. This strongly implied separate channels for the detection of LM and CM structure. However, we now report experiments in which adapting to LM (or CM) gratings creates tilt aftereffects of similar magnitude on both LM and CM test gratings, and reduces the perceived strength (modulation depth) of LM and CM gratings to a similar extent. This transfer of aftereffects between LM and CM might suggest a second stage of processing at which LM and CM information is integrated. The nature of this integration, however, is unclear and several simple predictions are not fulfilled. Firstly, one might expect the integration stage to lose identity information about whether the pattern was LM or CM. We show instead that the identity of barely detectable LM and CM patterns is not lost. Secondly, when LM and CM gratings are combined in-phase or out-of-phase we find no evidence for cancellation, nor for 'phase-blindness'. These results suggest that information about LM and CM is not pooled or merged - shading is not confused with texture variation. We suggest that LM and CM signals are carried by separate channels, but they share a common adaptation mechanism that accounts for the almost complete transfer of perceptual aftereffects.

Response normalization and blur adaptation:data and multi-scale model

Adapting to blurred or sharpened images alters perceived blur of a focused image (M. A. Webster, M. A. Georgeson, & S. M. Webster, 2002). We asked whether blur adaptation results in (a) renormalization of perceived focus or (b) a repulsion aftereffect. Images were checkerboards or 2-D Gaussian noise, whose amplitude spectra had (log-log) slopes from -2 (strongly blurred) to 0 (strongly sharpened). Observers adjusted the spectral slope of a comparison image to match different test slopes after adaptation to blurred or sharpened images. Results did not show repulsion effects but were consistent with some renormalization. Test blur levels at and near a blurred or sharpened adaptation level were matched by more focused slopes (closer to 1/f) but with little or no change in appearance after adaptation to focused (1/f) images. A model of contrast adaptation and blur coding by multiple-scale spatial filters predicts these blur aftereffects and those of Webster et al. (2002). A key proposal is that observers are pre-adapted to natural spectra, and blurred or sharpened spectra induce changes in the state of adaptation. The model illustrates how norms might be encoded and recalibrated in the visual system even when they are represented only implicitly by the distribution of responses across multiple channels.