In this study of the informativeness of boundary contours for the perception of natural object shape, observers viewed shadows/silhouettes cast by natural solid objects and were required to adjust the positions of a set of 10 points so that the resulting dotted shape resembled the shape of the original silhouette as closely as possible. For each object, the observers were then asked to indicate the corresponding positions of the 10 points on the original boundary contour. The results showed that there was a close correspondence between the chosen positions of the points and the locations along the boundary contour that were local curvature maxima (convexities or concavities). This finding differs from that of Kennedy and Domander (1985 Perception14 367–370), and shows that, at least for natural objects, the original hypothesis of Attneave (1954 Psychological Review61 183–193) is valid—local curvature maxima are indeed important for the perception of shape.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF, 1954“Some informational aspects of visual perception”Psychological Review61183–193.
2.
BaconR, 1267/1996“Perspectiva”, in Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages translated by D C Lindberg [1996, New York: Oxford University Press (original work published in 1267)].
3.
BlakeACipollaR, 1991“Robust estimation of surface curvature from deformation of apparent contours”Image and Vision Computing9107–112.
4.
ChienCAggarwalJ K, 1989“Model construction and shape recognition from occluding contours”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence11372–389.
5.
CipollaRBlakeA, 1992“Surface shape from the deformation of apparent contours”International Journal of Computer Vision983–112.
6.
ConnorC EPasupathyA, 1998“Tuning for contour feature orientation, convexity, acuteness and curvature in macaque area V4”Society for Neuroscience Abstracts241507.
7.
DobbinsAZuckerS WCynaderM S, 1987“Endstopped neurons in the visual cortex as a substrate for calculating curvature”Nature329438–441.
8.
DobbinsAZuckerS WCynaderM S, 1989“Endstopping and curvature”Vision Research291371–1387.
9.
GiblinPWeissR, 1987“Reconstruction of surfaces from profiles”Proceedings of the IEEE First International Conference on Computer Vision136–144.
10.
GibsonJ J, 1933“Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of curved lines”Journal of Experimental Psychology161–31.
11.
GrahamC H, 1965“Visual form perception”, in Vision and Visual Perception Eds GrahamC HBartlettN RBrownJ LHsiaYMuellerC GRiggsL A (New York: John Wiley) pp 548–574.
12.
HanMJangD, 1990“The use of maximum curvature points for the recognition of partially occluded objects”Pattern Recognition2321–33.
13.
HilbertDCohn-VossenS, 1952Geometry and the Imagination translated by P Nemenyi (New York: Chelsea).
14.
HoffmanD DRichardsW A, 1984“Parts of recognition”Cognition1865–96.
15.
HubelD HWieselT N, 1965“Receptive fields and functional architecture in two nonstriate visual areas (18 and 19) of the cat”Journal of Neurophysiology28229–289.
16.
Ibn al-Haytham, ca 1030/1989“Optics”, in The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham: Books I III, On Direct Vision translated by A I Sabra [1989, London: The Warburg Institute, University of London (original work published ca 1030)].
17.
KennedyJ MDomanderR, 1985“Shape and contour: The points of maximum change are least useful for recognition”Perception14367–370.
18.
KoenderinkJ J, 1984“What does the occluding contour tell us about solid shape?”Perception13321–330.
19.
KoenderinkJ J, 1990Solid Shape (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
20.
KoenderinkJ JDoom AJvan, 1976“The singularities of the visual mapping”Biological Cybernetics2451–59.
21.
KoenderinkJ JDoom AJvan, 1978“How an ambulant observer can construct a model of the environment from the geometrical structure of the visual inflow”, in Kybernetik 1977 Eds HauskeGButenandtE (Munich: Oldenbourg) pp 224–247.
22.
KoenderinkJ JDoom AJvan, 1982“The shape of smooth objects and the way contours end”Perception11129–137.
23.
KoenderinkJ JDoom AJvan, 1987“Representation of local geometry in the visual system”Biological Cybernetics55367–375.
24.
KoenderinkJ JRichardsW, 1988“Two-dimensional curvature operators”Journal of the Optical Society of America A51136–1141.
25.
KoffkaK, 1935Principles of Gestalt Psychology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World).
26.
KramerDFahleM, 1996“A simple mechanism for detecting low curvatures”Vision Research361411–1419.
27.
MachE, 1897/1959The Analysis of Sensations, and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical [1959, New York: Dover (original work published in 1897)].
28.
MarrD, 1982Vision (San Francisco, CA: W H Freeman).
29.
NormanJ FDawsonT ERainesS R, 2000“The perception and recognition of natural object shape from deforming and static shadows”Perception29135–148.
30.
PasupathyAConnorC E, 1999“Responses to contour features in macaque area V4”Journal of Neurophysiology822490–2502.
31.
PettetM W, 1999“Shape and contour detection”Vision Research39551–557.
32.
PhillipsFToddJ TKoenderinkJ JKappersAML, 1997“Perceptual localization of surface position”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance231481–1492.
33.
PollickF EGiblinP JRycroftJWilsonL L, 1992“Human recovery of shape from profiles”Behaviormetrika1965–79.
34.
ReganD, 2000Human Perception of Objects (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates).
35.
RichardsW AKoenderinkJ JHoffmanD D, 1987“Inferring three-dimensional shapes from two-dimensional silhouettes”Journal of the Optical Society of America A41168–1175.
36.
SinghMSeyranianG DHoffmanD D, 1999“Parsing silhouettes: The short-cut rule”Perception & Psychophysics61636–660.
37.
TreismanAGormicanS, 1988“Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries”Psychological Review9515–48.
38.
WattR JAndrewsD P, 1982“Contour curvature analysis: Hyperacuities in the discrimination of detailed shape”Vision Research22449–460.
