Revisiting spatial vision: toward a unifying model

We report contrast detection, contrast increment, contrast masking, orientation discrimination, and spatial frequency discrimination thresholds for spatially localized stimuli at 4° of eccentricity. Our stimulus geometry emphasizes interactions among overlapping visual filters and differs from that used in previous threshold measurements, which also admits interactions among distant filters. We quantitatively account for all measurements by simulating a small population of overlapping visual filters interacting through divisive inhibition. We depart from previous models of this kind in the parameters of divisive inhibition and in using a statistically efficient decision stage based on Fisher information. The success of this unified account suggests that, contrary to Bowne [Vision Res. 30, 449 (1990)], spatial vision thresholds reflect a single level of processing, perhaps as early as primary visual cortex

Feature combination strategies for saliency-based visual attention systems

Bottom-up or saliency-based visual attention allows primates to detect nonspecific conspicuous targets in cluttered scenes. A classical metaphor, derived from electrophysiological and psychophysical studies, describes attention as a rapidly shiftable “spotlight.” We use a model that reproduces the attentional scan paths of this spotlight. Simple multi-scale “feature maps” detect local spatial discontinuities in intensity, color, and orientation, and are combined into a unique “master” or “saliency” map. The saliency map is sequentially scanned, in order of decreasing saliency, by the focus of attention. We here study the problem of combining feature maps, from different visual modalities (such as color and orientation), into a unique saliency map. Four combination strategies are compared using three databases of natural color images: (1) Simple normalized summation, (2) linear combination with learned weights, (3) global nonlinear normalization followed by summation, and (4) local nonlinear competition between salient locations followed by summation. Performance was measured as the number of false detections before the most salient target was found. Strategy (1) always yielded poorest performance and (2) best performance, with a threefold to eightfold improvement in time to find a salient target. However, (2) yielded specialized systems with poor generalization. Interestingly, strategy (4) and its simplified, computationally efficient approximation (3) yielded significantly better performance than (1), with up to fourfold improvement, while preserving generality