A statistical explanation of visual space

Nature Neuroscience

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 632-640

  Yang, Zhiyong ^a   Purves, Dale ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GEOMETRY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LASER; LASER RANGE SCANNING; PERCEPTION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VISUAL FIELD;

HUMANS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SPACE PERCEPTION; SPATIAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL FIELDS;

EID: 0038697968     PISSN: 10976256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nn1059     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Hershenson, M. Visual Space Perception: a Primer (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999).
2. Gillam, B. The perception of spatial layout from static optical information. In Perception of Space and Motion (eds. Epstein, W. & Rogers, S.) 23-67 (Academic, New York, 1995).
3. Sedgwick, H.A. Space perception, in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance Vol. I (eds. Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L. & Thomas, J. P.) 21.1-21.57 (Wiley, Toronto, 1986).
4. Loomis, J.M., Da Silva, J.A., Philbeck, J.W. & Fukusima, S.S. Visual perception of location and distance. Curr. Dir. Psych. Sci. 5, 72-77 (1996).
5. Gogel, W.C. Equidistance tendency and its consequences. Psychol. Bull. 64, 153-163 (1965).
6. Owens, D.A. & Leibowitz, H.W. Oculomotor adjustments in darkness and the specific distance tendency. Percept. Psychophys. 20, 2-9 (1976).
7. Epstein, W. & Landauer, A.A. Size and distance judgments under reduced conditions of viewing. Percept. Psychophys. 6, 269-272 (1969).
8. Gogel, W.C. & Tietz, J.D. A comparison of oculomotor and motion parallax cues of egocentric distance. Vis. Res. 19, 1161-1170 (1979).
9. Morrison, J.D. & Whiteside, T.C.D. Binocular cues in the perception of distance to a point source of light. Perception 13, 555-566 (1984).
10. Foley, J.M. Binocular distance perception: egocentric distance tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 11, 133-149 (1985).
11. Philbeck, J.W. & Loomis, J.M. Comparison of two indicators of perceived egocentric distance under full-cue and reduced-cue conditions. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 23, 72-85 (1997).
12. Wallach, H. & O'Leary, A. Slope of regard as a distance cue. Percept. Psychophys. 31, 145-148 (1982).
13. Ooi, T.L., Wu, B. & He, Z.J. Distance determined by the angular declination below the horizon. Nature 414, 197-200 (2001).
14. Sinai, M.J., Ooi, T.L. & He, Z.J. Terrain influences the accurate judgment of distance. Nature 395, 497-500 (1998).
15. Meng, J.C. & Sedgwick, H.A. Distance perception mediated through nested contact relations among surfaces. Percept. Psychophys. 63, 1-15 (2001).
16. Knill, D.C. & Richards, W. Perception as Bayesian Inference (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1996).
17. Purves, D. & Lotto, B. Why We See What We Do: an Empirical Theory of Vision (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 2003).
18. nd edn. (ed. Gazzaniga, M.S.) 353-363 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999).
19. Geisler, W.S. & Kersten, D. Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 508-510 (2002).
20. Belhumeur, P.N. A Bayesian approach to binocular stereopsis. Intl. J. Comp. Vision 19, 237-260 (1996).
21. Bloj, M.G., Kersten, D. & Hurlbert, A.C. Perception of three-dimensional shape influences colour perception through mutual illumination. Nature 402, 877-879 (1999).
22. Weiss, Y., Simoncelli, E. & Adelson, E.H. Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 598-604 (2002).
23. Geisler, W.S., Perry, J.S., Super, B.J. & Gallogly, D.P. Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vis. Res. 41, 711-724 (2001).
24. Mumford, D. & Gidas, B. Stochastic models for generic images. Q. J. Appl. Math. 59, 85-111 (2001).
25. Lee, A.B., Mumford, D. & Huang, J. Occlusion models for natural images: a statistical study of a scale-invariant dead leaves model. Int. J. Comput. Vision 41, 35-59 (2001).
26. Luneberg, R.K. Mathematical Analysis of Binocular Vision (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1947).
27. Indow, T. A critical review of Luneburg's model with regard to global structure of visual space. Psychol. Rev. 98, 430-453 (1991).
28. Wagner, M. The metric of visual space. Percept. Psychophys. 38, 483-495 (1985).
29. Todd, J.T., Oomes, A.H.J., Koenderink, J.J. & Kappers, A.M.L. On the affine structure of perceptual space. Psychol. Sci. 12, 191-196 (2001).
30. Gibson, J.J. The Perception of the Visual World (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1950).
31. Simoncelli, E.P. & Olshausen, B.A. Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 1193-1216 (2001).
32. Olshausen, B.A. & Field, D.J. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381, 607-609 (1996).
33. Vinje, W.E. & Gallant, J.L. Sparse coding and decorrelation in primary cortex during natural vision. Science 287, 1273-1276 (2000).
34. Sigman, M., Cecchi, G.A., Gilbert, C.D. & Magnasco, M.O. On a common circle: natural scenes and Gestalt rules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1935-1940 (2001).
35. Howe, C.Q. & Purves, D. The statistics of range images can explain the anomalous perception of length. Proc. Natt. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 13184-13188 (2002).
36. Huang, J., Lee, A.B. & Mumford, D. Statistics of range images. Proc. IEEE Conf. CVPR 1, 324-331 (2000).
37. Brainard, D.H. & Freeman, W.T. Bayesian color constancy. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 1393-1411 (1997).