Cited by 147Visual perception and processing mechanismsAdvanced Vision and ImagingFace Recognition and Perception

Surface orientation from texture: ideal observers, generic observers and the information content of texture cues

Open access
Knill, David C.·1998·Vision Research

Abstract

Perspective views of textured, planar surfaces provide a number of cues about the orientations of the surfaces. These include the information created by perspective scaling of texture elements (scaling), the information created by perspective foreshortening of texels (foreshortening) and, for textures composed of discrete elements, the information created by the effects of both scaling and foreshortening on the relative positions of texels (position). We drive a general form for ideal observers for each of these cues as they appear in images of spatially extended textures, (e.g. those composed of solid 2-D figures). As an application of the formulation, we derive a set of 'generic' observers which we show perform near optimally for images of a broad range of surface textures, without special prior knowledge about the statistics of the textures. Using simulations of ideal observers, we analyze the informational structure of texture cues, including a quantification of lower bounds on reliability for the three different cues, how cue reliability varies with slant angle and how it varies with field of view. We also quantify how strongly the reliability of the foreshortening cue depends on a prior assumption of isotropy. Finally, we extend the analysis to a naturalistic class of textures, showing that the information content of textures particularly suited to psychophysical investigation can be quantified, at least to a first-order approximation. The results provide an important computational foundation for psychophysical work on perceiving surface orientation from texture.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00324-6

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The gradient of change in element size and density in a homogenously tiled surface's projection ("texture") provides information about its slant.

    “The gradient of change in element size and density in a homogenously tiled surface's projection (“texture”) provides information about its slant (15).”

    From Fusion of visual cues is not mandatory in children (2010) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Texture was much faster than disparity at the easier stimulus levels.

    “Texture was much faster than disparity at the easier stimulus levels (Fig. 3), in line with texture-based slant discriminations becoming progressively easier toward the horizontal (15) and with binocular fusion for stereopsis requiring additional time irrespective of stimulus difficulty.”

    From Fusion of visual cues is not mandatory in children (2010) · cites this paper as [15]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Knill DC. Discriminating surface slant from texture: comparing human and ideal observers. Vis Res 1998;38:1683 -1711.
  2. Rosenholtz R, Malik J. Shape from texture: Isotropy or homo- geneity (or both)? Vis Res 1997;37:2283-2294.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knill, D. C.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Knill, David C.
Venue
Vision Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-06
Volume
38
Issue
11
Pages
1655-1682
ISSN
0042-6989 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048245740
Cited by
147
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vision Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
surface orientation, texture cues, ideal observer, foreshortening, cue reliability, slant perception, field of view, isotropy assumption
MeSH terms
Cues, Humans, Mathematics, Models, Neurological, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychophysics, Rotation, Likelihood Functions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review