Discriminating depth in corrugated stereo surfaces: facilitation by a pedestal is explained by removal of uncertainty

With luminance gratings, psychophysical thresholds for detecting a small increase in the contrast of a weak ‘pedestal’ grating are 2–3 times lower than for detection of a grating when the pedestal is absent. This is the ‘dipper effect’ – a reliable improvement whose interpretation remains controversial. Analogies between luminance and depth (disparity) processing have attracted interest in the existence of a ‘disparity dipper’. Are thresholds for disparity modulation (corrugated surfaces), facilitated by the presence of a weak disparity-modulated pedestal? We used a 14-bit greyscale to render small disparities accurately, and measured 2AFC discrimination thresholds for disparity modulation (0.3 or 0.6 c/deg) of a random texture at various pedestal levels. In the first experiment, a clear dipper was found. Thresholds were about 2× lower with weak pedestals than without. But here the phase of modulation (0 or 180 deg) was varied from trial to trial. In a noisy signal-detection framework, this creates uncertainty that is reduced by the pedestal, which thus improves performance. When the uncertainty was eliminated by keeping phase constant within sessions, the dipper effect was weak or absent. Monte Carlo simulations showed that the influence of uncertainty could account well for the results of both experiments. A corollary is that the visual depth response to small disparities is probably linear, with no threshold-like nonlinearity.

Discriminating depth in stereo surfaces: dipper effect found, and lost

Measurement of detection and discrimination thresholds yields information about visual signal processing. For luminance contrast, we are 2 - 3 times more sensitive to a small increase in the contrast of a weak 'pedestal' grating, than when the pedestal is absent. This is the 'dipper effect' - a reliable improvement whose interpretation remains controversial. Analogies between luminance and depth (disparity) processing have attracted interest in the existence of a 'disparity dipper' - are thresholds for disparity, or disparity modulation (corrugated surfaces), facilitated by the presence of a weak pedestal? Lunn and Morgan (1997 Journal of the Optical Society of America A 14 360 - 371) found no dipper for disparity-modulated gratings, but technical limitations (8-bit greyscale) might have prevented the necessary measurement of very small disparity thresholds. We used a true 14-bit greyscale to render small disparities accurately, and measured 2AFC discrimination thresholds for disparity modulation (0.6 cycle deg-1) of a random texture at various pedestal levels. Which interval contained greater modulation of depth? In the first experiment, a clear dipper was found. Thresholds were about 2X1 lower with weak pedestals than without. But here the phase of modulation (0° or 180°) was randomised from trial to trial. In a noisy signal-detection framework, this creates uncertainty that is reduced by the pedestal, thus improving performance. When the uncertainty was eliminated by keeping phase constant within sessions, the dipper effect disappeared, confirming Lunn and Morgan's result. The absence of a dipper, coupled with shallow psychometric slopes, suggests that the visual response to small disparities is essentially linear, with no threshold-like nonlinearity.

The role of local luminance amplitude in the interpretation of shape-from-shading in textured surfaces

Luminance changes within a scene are ambiguous; they can indicate reflectance changes, shadows, or shading due to surface undulations. How does vision distinguish between these possibilities? When a surface painted with an albedo texture is shaded, the change in local mean luminance (LM) is accompanied by a similar modulation of the local luminance amplitude (AM) of the texture. This relationship does not necessarily hold for reflectance changes or for shading of a relief texture. Here we concentrate on the role of AM in shape-from-shading. Observers were presented with a noise texture onto which sinusoidal LM and AM signals were superimposed, and were asked to indicate which of two marked locations was closer to them. Shape-from-shading was enhanced when LM and AM co-varied (in-phase), and was disrupted when they were out-of-phase. The perceptual differences between cue types (in-phase vs out-of-phase) were enhanced when the two cues were present at different orientations within a single image. Similar results were found with a haptic matching task. We conclude that vision can use AM to disambiguate luminance changes. LM and AM have a positive relationship for rendered, undulating, albedo textures, and we assess the degree to which this relationship holds in natural images. [Supported by EPSRC grants to AJS and MAG].

Local luminance amplitude modulates the interpretation of shape-from-shading in textured surfaces

The pattern of illumination on an undulating surface can be used to infer its 3-D form (shape-from-shading). But the recovery of shape would be invalid if the luminance changes actually arose from changes in reflectance. So how does vision distinguish variation in illumination from variation in reflectance to avoid illusory depth? When a corrugated surface is painted with an albedo texture, the variation in local mean luminance (LM) due to shading is accompanied by a similar modulation in local luminance amplitude (AM). This is not so for reflectance variation, nor for roughly textured surfaces. We used depth mapping and paired comparison methods to show that modulations of local luminance amplitude play a role in the interpretation of shape-from-shading. The shape-from-shading percept was enhanced when LM and AM co-varied (in-phase) and was disrupted when they were out of phase or (to a lesser degree) when AM was absent. The perceptual differences between cue types (in-phase vs out-of-phase) were enhanced when the two cues were present at different orientations within a single image. Our results suggest that when LM and AM co-vary (in-phase) this indicates that the source of variation is illumination (caused by undulations of the surface), rather than surface reflectance. Hence, the congruence of LM and AM is a cue that supports a shape-from-shading interpretation. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.