Comparison of Bayesian and empirical ranking approaches to visual perception

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 241, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 866-875

  Howe, Catherine Q ^a   Beau Lotto, R ^b   Purves, Dale ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian decision theory; Empirical ranking theory; Perception; Vision

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; PERCEPTION; VISION;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION THEORY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL STIMULATION;

BAYES THEOREM; HUMANS; LIGHTING; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; OPTICAL ILLUSIONS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; RETINA; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33746260083     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: 10958541     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.01.017     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bayes T. An essay toward solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 53 (1763) 370-418
2. Berkeley, G., 1709/1976. A New Theory of Vision, Everyman's Library
3. Blake A., et al. Shape from texture: ideal observers and human psychophysics. Vision Res. 33 12 (1993) 1723-1737
4. Brainard D.H., and Freeman W.T. Bayesian color constancy. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Optics, Image Sci. Vision 14 7 (1997) 1393-1411
5. Feldman J. Bayesian contour integration. Perception Psychophys. 63 7 (2001) 1171-1182
6. Freeman W.T. The generic viewpoint assumption in a framework for visual perception. Nature 368 6471 (1994) 542-545
7. Geisler W.S., and Kersten D. Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nat. Neurosci. 5 6 (2002) 508-510
8. Geisler W.S., et al. Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vision Res. 41 6 (2001) 711-724
9. Geman S., and Geman D. Stochastic relaxation Gibbs distributions, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 6 (1984) 721-741
10. Grenander U. Elements of Pattern Theory (1996), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
11. Helmholtz, H.L.F.v., 1866/1924. Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics. The Optical Society of America.
12. In: Heyer D., and Mausfeld R. (Eds). Perception and the Physical World: Psychological and Philosophical Issues in Perception (2002), Wiley, New York
13. Howe C.Q., and Purves D. Size contrast and assimilation explained by the statistics of natural scene geometry. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16 1 (2004) 90-102
14. Howe C.Q., and Purves D. Perceiving Geometry: Geometrical Illusions Explained by Natural Scene Statistics (2005), Springer, Berlin
15. Howe C.Q., and Purves D. Natural scene geometry predicts the perception of angles and line orientation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 4 (2005) 1228-1233
16. Howe C.Q., and Purves D. The Müller-Lyer illusion explained by the statistics of image-source relationships. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 4 (2005) 1234-1239
17. Hubel, D.H. (1988). Eye, Brain and Vision. WH Freeman, New York.
18. Jacobs R.A. Optimal integration of texture and motion cues to depth. Vision Res. 39 21 (1999) 3621-3629
19. Kersten D. High-level vision as statistical inference. In: Gazzaniga M.S. (Ed). The New Cognitive Neurosciences (2000), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 353-363
20. Kersten D., and Yuille A. Bayesian models of object perception. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 13 2 (2003) 150-158
21. Knill D.C. Discrimination of planar surface slant from texture: Human and ideal observers compared. Vision Res. 38 11 (1998) 1683-1711
22. Knill D.C. Surface orientation from texture: Ideal observers, generic observers and the information content of texture cues. Vision Res. 38 11 (1998) 1655-1682
23. Knill D.C., and Pouget A. The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends Neurosci. 27 (2004) 712-719
24. In: Knill D.C., and Richards W. (Eds). Perception as Bayesian Inference (1996), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
25. Knill D.C., et al. Introduction: a Bayesian formulation of visual perception. In: Knill D.C., and Richards W. (Eds). Perception as Bayesian Inference (1996), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1-21
26. Long, F., Yang, Z., Purves, D., 2006. Spectral statistics in natural scenes predict hue, saturation and brightness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (in press).
27. Maloney L.T. Statistical decision theory and biological vision. In: Heyer D., and Mausfeld R. (Eds). Perception and the Physical World: Psychological and Philosophical Issues in Perception (2002), Wiley, New York 145-189
28. Mamassian P., et al. Bayesian modelling of visual perception. In: Rao R.P.N., et al. (Ed). Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function (2002), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 13-36
29. Purves, D., Lotto, B., 2003. Why We See What We Do: An Empirical Theory of Vision, Sinauer.
30. In: Rao R.P.N., et al. (Ed). Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function (2002), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
31. Turner R.S. In the Eye's Mind: Vision and the Helmholtz-Hering Controversy (1994), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
32. Weiss Y., et al. Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nat. Neurosci. 5 6 (2002) 598-604
33. Yang Z., and Purves D. The statistical structure of natural light patterns determines perceived light intensity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101 23 (2004) 8745-8750
34. Yuille A.L., and Grzywacz N.M. A theoretical framework for visual motion. In: Watanabe T. (Ed). High-level Motion Processing: Computational, Neurobiological, and Psychophysical Perspectives (1998), The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 187-211