We investigated the role of spatial arrangement of texture elements in three
psychophysical experiments on texture discrimination and texture segregation. In
our stimuli, oriented Gabor elements formed an iso-oriented and a randomly
oriented texture region. We manipulated (1) the orientation similarity in the
iso-oriented region by adding orientation jitter to the orientation of each
Gabor; (2) the spatial arrangement of the Gabors: quasi-random or regular; and
(3) the shape of the edge between the two texture regions: straight or curved.
In Experiment 1, participants discriminated an iso-oriented stimulus from a
stimulus with only randomly oriented elements. Experiment 2 required texture
segregation to judge the shape of the texture edge. Experiment 3 replicated
Experiment 2 with Gabors of a smaller spatial extent in a denser arrangement. We
found comparable performance levels with regular and quasi-random Gabor
positions in the discrimination task but not in the segregation tasks. We
conclude that spatial arrangement plays a role in a texture segregation task
requiring shape discrimination of the texture edge but not in a texture
discrimination task in which it is sufficient to discriminate an iso-oriented
region from a completely random region.
BergenJ.
R., & LandyM.
S. (1991).
Computational modeling of visual texture
segregation. In LandyM.
S. & MovshonJ.
A. (Eds.), Computational
models of visual processing (pp.
253–271). (Cambridge,
MA: MIT
Press)
5.
BolkerB.
M.BrooksM. E.ClarkC. J.GeangeS. W.PoulsenJ. R.StevensM. H.
H., & WhiteJ.
S. (2009).
Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for
ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology &
Evolution, 24,
127–135.
doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008
6.
CaelliT.
(1985). Three processing characteristics of
visual texture segmentation. Spatial
Vision, 1, 19–30.
doi:10.1163/156856885X00044
7.
ClaessensP.
M., & WagemansJ.
(2005). Perceptual grouping in Gabor lattices:
proximity and alignment. Perception &
Psychophysics, 67,
1446–1459. doi:
10.3758/BF03193649
8.
ComptonB.
J., & LoganG.
D. (1993).
Evaluating a computational model of perceptual grouping by
proximity. Perception & Psychophysics,
53, 403–421.
doi:10.3758/BF03206783
9.
DakinS.
C., & BaruchN.
J. (2009).
Context influences contour integration.
Journal of Vision, 9(2),
13. doi:10.1167/9.2.13
10.
DayM.,
& LofflerG.
(2009). The role of orientation and position in
shape perception. Journal of Vision,
9(10), 14.
doi:10.1167/9.10.14
11.
DemeyerM.,
& MachilsenB.
(2012). The construction of perceptual grouping
displays using GERT. Behavioral Research
Methods, 44,
439–446.
doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0167-8
12.
FieldD.
J.HayesA.,
& HessR.
F. (1993).
Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for
a local “association field.”Vision Research, 33,
173–193
13.
GheorghiuE.,
& KingdomF.
A. (2009).
Multiplication in curvature processing.
Journal of Vision, 9(2),
23. doi:10.1167/9.2.23
14.
GioraE.,
& CascoC.
(2007). Region- and edge-based configurational
effects in texture segmentation. Vision
Research, 47,
879–886.
doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.01.009
15.
HancockS.,
& PeirceJ.
W. (2008).
Selective mechanisms for simple contours revealed by compound
adaptation. Journal of Vision,
8(7), 11.
doi:10.1167/8.7.11
16.
HarrisonS.
J., & KeebleD. R.
T. (2008).
Within-texture collinearity improves human texture
segmentation. Vision Research,
48, 1955–1964.
doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.06.008
17.
JaegerT.
F. (2008).
Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation
or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of
Memory and Language, 59,
434–446.
doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
18.
JainA.
K., & FarrokhniaF.
(1991). Unsupervised texture segmentation using
Gabor filters. Pattern Recognition,
24, 1167–1186.
doi:10.1016/0031-3203(91)90143-S
19.
KeebleD.
R.KingdomF.
A., & MorganM.
J. (1997).
The orientational resolution of human texture
perception. Vision Research,
37, 2993–3007.
doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(96)00235-0
20.
KeebleD.
R.KingdomF. A.MouldenB.,
& MorganM.
J. (1995).
Detection of orientationally multimodal
textures. Vision Research,
35, 1991–2005.
doi:10.1016/0042-6989(94)00284-S
21.
KehrerL.,
& MeineckeC.
(2003). A space-variant filter model of texture
segregation: Parameter adjustment guided by psychophysical
data. Biological Cybernetics,
88, 183–200.
doi:10.1007/s00422-002-0369-3
22.
KubovyM.HolcombeA.
O., & WagemansJ.
(1998). On the lawfulness of grouping by
proximity. Cognitive Psychology,
35, 71–98.
doi:10.1006/cogp.1997.0673
23.
KubovyM.,
& WagemansJ.
(1995). Grouping by proximity and multistability
in dot lattices: A quantitative Gestalt theory.
Psychological Science, 6,
225–234.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00597.x
24.
LammeV. A.
F.Rodriguez-RodriguezV.,
& SpekreijseH.
(1999). Separate processing dynamics for texture
elements, boundaries and surfaces in primary visual cortex of the macaque
monkey. Cerebral Cortex,
9, 406–413.
doi:10.1093/cercor/9.4.406
25.
LandyM.
S. (1996).
Texture perception. In AdelmanG.
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of neuroscience.
Amsterdam:
Elsevier. Retrieved December 14, 2012, from
http://www.cns.nyu.edu/∼msl/papers/landy96.pdf
26.
LandyM.
S., & BergenJ.
R. (1991).
Texture segregation and orientation gradient.
Vision Research, 31,
679–691.
doi:10.1016/0042-6989(91)90009-T
27.
LandyM.
S., & GrahamN.
(2004). Visual perception of
texture. In ChalupaL.
M. & WernerJ.
S. (Eds.), The visual
neurosciences (Vol. 169; pp.
1106–1118). Cambridge,
MA: MIT
Press
28.
MachilsenB.,
& WagemansJ.
(2011). Integration of contour and surface
information in shape detection. Vision
Research, 51,
179–186.
doi:10.1016/j.visres.2010.11.005
NormanL.
J.HeywoodC.
A., & KentridgeR.
W. (2011).
Contrasting the processes of texture segmentation and
discrimination with static and phase-reversing stimuli.
Vision Research, 51,
2039–2047.
doi:10.1016/j.visres.2011.07.021
31.
NothdurftH.
C. (1992).
Feature analysis and the role of similarity in preattentive
vision. Perception & Psychophysics,
52, 355–375.
doi:10.3758/BF03206697
32.
PearsonP.
M., & KingdomF.
A. A. (2001).
On the interference of task-irrelevant hue variation on
texture segmentation. Perception,
30, 559–569.
doi:10.1068/p3184
33.
QuenéH.,
& Van Den
BerghH.
(2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with
crossed random effects and with binomial data.
Journal of Memory and Language, 59,
413–425.
doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.002
34.
RobolV.CascoC.,
& DakinS.
C. (2012).
The role of crowding in contextual influences on contour
integration. Journal of Vision,
12(7), 3.
doi:10.1167/12.7.3
35.
SassiM.VancleefK.MachilsenB.PanisS.,
& WagemansJ.
(2010). Identification of everyday objects on
the basis of Gaborized outline versions.
i-Perception, 1,
121–142. doi:10.1068/i0384
36.
SchwarzG.
(1978). Estimating the dimension of a
model. Annals of Statistics,
2, 461–464.
doi:10.1214/aos/1176344136
37.
ThielscherA.,
& NeumannH.
(2005). Neural mechanisms of human texture
processing: Texture boundary detection and visual search.
Spatial Vision, 18,
227–257.
doi:10.1163/1568568053320594
38.
TreismanA.
(1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in
visual search for features and for objects. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
8, 194–214.
doi:10.1037//0096-1523.8.2.194
39.
van OeffelenM.
P., & VosP.
G. (1982).
Configurational effects on the enumeration of dots: Counting
by groups. Memory & Cognition,
10, 396–404.
doi:10.3758/BF03202432
40.
WagemansJ.ElderJ. H.KubovyM.PalmerS. E.PetersonM. A.SinghM.,
& von der
HeydtR.
(2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in
visual perception I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground
organization. Psychological Bulletin,
138(6),
1172–1217.
doi:10.1037/a0029333
41.
WertheimerM.
(1938). Laws of organization in perceptual
forms. In EllisW.
D. (Ed), A sourcebook of
Gestalt psychology (pp. 71–88).
London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner & Co (Original work published
1923)
42.
WolfsonS.
S., & LandyM.
S. (1995).
Discrimination of orientation-defined texture
edges. Vision Research,
35, 2863–2877.
doi:10.1016/0042-6989(94)00302-3
43.
WolfsonS.
S., & LandyM.
S. (1998).
Examining edge- and region-based texture analysis
mechanisms. Vision Research,
38, 439–446
