OSA's Digital Library

Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

| EXPLORING THE INTERFACE OF LIGHT AND BIOMEDICINE

  • Editors: Andrew Dunn and Anthony Durkin
  • Vol. 8, Iss. 9 — Oct. 2, 2013

A unified account of gloss and lightness perception in terms of gamut relativity

Tony Vladusich  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 30, Issue 8, pp. 1568-1579 (2013)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.30.001568


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (820 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

A recently introduced computational theory of visual surface representation, termed gamut relativity, overturns the classical assumption that brightness, lightness, and transparency constitute perceptual dimensions corresponding to the physical dimensions of luminance, diffuse reflectance, and transmittance, respectively. Here I extend the theory to show how surface gloss and lightness can be understood in a unified manner in terms of the vector computation of “layered representations” of surface and illumination properties, rather than as perceptual dimensions corresponding to diffuse and specular reflectance, respectively. The theory simulates the effects of image histogram skewness on surface gloss/lightness and lightness constancy as a function of specular highlight intensity. More generally, gamut relativity clarifies, unifies, and generalizes a wide body of previous theoretical and experimental work aimed at understanding how the visual system parses the retinal image into layered representations of surface and illumination properties.

© 2013 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.1720) Vision, color, and visual optics : Color vision
(330.7310) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision

ToC Category:
Vision, Color, and Visual Optics

History
Original Manuscript: January 3, 2013
Revised Manuscript: May 24, 2013
Manuscript Accepted: May 31, 2013
Published: July 17, 2013

Virtual Issues
Vol. 8, Iss. 9 Virtual Journal for Biomedical Optics

Citation
Tony Vladusich, "A unified account of gloss and lightness perception in terms of gamut relativity," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 30, 1568-1579 (2013)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/vjbo/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-30-8-1568


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. J. J. Gibson, The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Lawrence Erlbaum, 1979).
  2. L. Pessoa, E. Thompson, and A. Noë, “Finding out about filling-in: a guide to perceptual completion for visual science and the philosophy of perception,” Behav. Brain Sci. 21, 723–748 (1998).
  3. J. Beck, “The effect of gloss on perceived lightness,” Am. J. Psychol. 77, 54–63 (1964). [CrossRef]
  4. H. Barrow and J. Tenenbaum, “Recovering intrinsic scene characteristics from images,” in Computer Vision Systems, A. R. Hanson and E. M. Riseman, eds. (Academic, 1978), pp. 3–26.
  5. D. Marr, Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (W. H. Freeman, 1982).
  6. T. Poggio, V. Torre, and C. Koch, “Computational vision and regularization theory,” Nature 317, 314–319 (1985). [CrossRef]
  7. R. W. Fleming, R. O. Dror, and E. H. Adelson, “Real-world illumination and the perception of surface reflectance properties,” J. Vis. 3(5):3, 347–368 (2003). [CrossRef]
  8. R. W. Fleming, A. Torralba, and E. H. Adelson, “Specular reflections and the perception of shape,” J. Vis. 4(9):10, 798–820 (2004). [CrossRef]
  9. H. T. Nefs, J. J. Koenderink, and A. M. L. Kappers, “Shape-from-shading for matte and glossy objects,” Acta Psychol. 121, 297–316 (2006). [CrossRef]
  10. S. C. Pont and J. J. Koenderink, “Reflectance from locally glossy thoroughly pitted surfaces,” Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 98, 211–222 (2005). [CrossRef]
  11. S. C. Pont and S. F. te Pas, “Material-illumination ambiguities and the perception of solid objects,” Perception 35, 1331–1350 (2006). [CrossRef]
  12. E. H. Adelson, “Lightness perception and lightness illusions,” in The New Cognitive Neurosciences, M. Gazzaniga, ed. (MIT, 2000), pp. 339–352.
  13. B. L. Anderson, “A theory of illusory lightness and transparency in monocular and binocular images: the role of contour junctions,” Perception 26, 419–453 (1997). [CrossRef]
  14. B. L. Anderson, “The role of occlusion in the perception of depth, lightness, and opacity,” Psychol. Rev. 110, 785–801 (2003). [CrossRef]
  15. J. A. Ferwerda, F. Pellacini, and D. P. Greenberg, “A psychophysically-based model of surface gloss perception,” Proc. SPIE 4299, 291–301 (2001). [CrossRef]
  16. A. Gilchrist, C. Kossyfidis, F. Bonato, T. Agostini, J. Cataliotti, X. Li, B. Spehar, V. Annan, and E. Economou, “An anchoring theory of lightness perception,” Psychol. Rev. 106, 795–834 (1999). [CrossRef]
  17. A. L. Gilchrist, Seeing Black and White (Oxford University, 2006).
  18. F. A. A. Kingdom, “Perceiving light versus material,” Vis. Res. 48, 2090–2105 (2008). [CrossRef]
  19. E. H. Land and J. J. McCann, “Lightness and retinex theory,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61, 1–11 (1971). [CrossRef]
  20. F. B. Leloup, M. R. Pointer, P. Dutré, and P. Hanselaer, “Luminance-based specular gloss characterization,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 28, 1322–1330 (2011). [CrossRef]
  21. F. B. Leloup, M. R. Pointer, P. Dutré, and P. Hanselaer, “Geometry of illumination, luminance contrast, and gloss perception,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 27, 2046–2054 (2010). [CrossRef]
  22. I. Motoyoshi and F. A. A. Kingdom, “Differential roles of contrast polarity reveal two streams of second-order visual processing,” Vis. Res. 47, 2047–2054 (2007). [CrossRef]
  23. I. Motoyoshi, “Highlight-shading relationship as a cue for the perception of translucent and transparent materials,” J. Vis. 10(9):6, 1–11 (2010). [CrossRef]
  24. I. Motoyoshi and H. Matoba, “Variability in constancy of the perceived surface reflectance across different illumination statistics,” Vis. Res. 53, 30–39 (2012). [CrossRef]
  25. M. D. Rutherford and D. H. Brainard, “Lightness constancy: a direct test of the illumination-estimation hypothesis,” Psychol. Sci. 13, 142–149 (2002). [CrossRef]
  26. I. Motoyoshi, S. Nishida, L. Sharan, and E. H. Adelson, “Image statistics and the perception of surface qualities,” Nature 447, 206–209 (2007). [CrossRef]
  27. L. Sharan, Y. Li, I. Motoyoshi, S. Nishida, and E. H. Adelson, “Image statistics for surface reflectance perception,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 25, 846–865 (2008). [CrossRef]
  28. B. L. Anderson and J. Kim, “Image statistics do not explain the perception of gloss and lightness,” J. Vis. 9(11):10, 1–17 (2009). [CrossRef]
  29. J. Kim and B. L. Anderson, “Image statistics and the perception of surface gloss and lightness,” J. Vis. 10(9):3, 1–17 (2010). [CrossRef]
  30. J. Kim, P. Marlow, and B. L. Anderson, “The perception of gloss depends on highlight congruence with surface shading,” J. Vis. 11(9):4, 1–19 (2011). [CrossRef]
  31. J. Kim, P. J. Marlow, and B. L. Anderson, “The dark side of gloss,” Nat. Neurosci. 15, 1590–1595 (2012). [CrossRef]
  32. P. Marlow, J. Kim, and B. L. Anderson, “The role of brightness and orientation congruence in the perception of surface gloss,” J. Vis. 11(9):16, 1–12 (2011). [CrossRef]
  33. P. J. Marlow, J. Kim, and B. L. Anderson, “The perception and misperception of specular surface reflectance,” Curr. Biol. 22, 1909–1913 (2012). [CrossRef]
  34. A. L. Gilchrist, S. Delman, and A. Jacobsen, “The classification and integration of edges as critical to the perception of reflectance and illumination,” Percept. Psychophys. 33, 425–436 (1983). [CrossRef]
  35. J. Beck and S. Prazdny, “Highlights and the perception of glossiness,” Percept. Psychophys. 30, 407–410 (1981). [CrossRef]
  36. M. W. A. Wijntjes and S. C. Pont, “Illusory gloss on Lambertian surfaces,” J. Vis. 10(9):13, 1–12 (2010). [CrossRef]
  37. F. Metelli, “The perception of transparency,” Sci. Am. 230, 90–98 (1974). [CrossRef]
  38. B. L. Anderson, “Visual perception of materials and surfaces,” Curr. Biol. 21, R978–R983 (2011). [CrossRef]
  39. M. Olkkonen and D. H. Brainard, “Perceived glossiness and lightness under real-world illumination,” J. Vis. 10(9):5, 1–5 (2010). [CrossRef]
  40. J. Berzhanskaya, G. Swaminathan, J. Beck, and E. Mingolla, “Remote effects of highlights on gloss perception,” Perception 34, 565–575 (2005). [CrossRef]
  41. B. L. Anderson, “Stereoscopic surface perception,” Neuron 24, 919–928 (1999). [CrossRef]
  42. B. L. Anderson, M. Singh, and R. W. Fleming, “The interpolation of object and surface structure,” Cognit. Psychol. 44, 148–190 (2002). [CrossRef]
  43. B. L. Anderson and J. Winawer, “Image segmentation and lightness perception,” Nature 434, 79–83 (2005). [CrossRef]
  44. B. L. Anderson and J. Winawer, “Layered image representations and the computation of surface lightness,” J. Vis. 8(7):18, 1–22 (2008). [CrossRef]
  45. V. Ekroll, F. Faul, R. Niederée, and E. Richter, “The natural center of chromaticity space is not always achromatic: a new look at color induction,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 13352–13356 (2002). [CrossRef]
  46. V. Ekroll, F. Faul, and R. Niederée, “The peculiar nature of simultaneous colour contrast in uniform surrounds,” Vis. Res. 44, 1765–1786 (2004). [CrossRef]
  47. V. Ekroll and F. Faul, “Basic characteristics of simultaneous color contrast revisited,” Psychol. Sci. 23, 1246–1255 (2012). [CrossRef]
  48. V. Ekroll and F. Faul, “New laws of simultaneous contrast?” Seeing Perceiving 25, 107–141 (2012). [CrossRef]
  49. F. Faul and V. Ekroll, “Psychophysical model of chromatic perceptual transparency based on substractive color mixture,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 19, 1084–1095 (2002). [CrossRef]
  50. F. Faul and V. Ekroll, “On the filter approach to perceptual transparency,” J. Vis. 11(7):7, 1–33 (2011). [CrossRef]
  51. F. Faul and V. Ekroll, “Transparent layer constancy,” J. Vis. 12(12):7, 1–26 (2012). [CrossRef]
  52. R. W. Fleming, “Human perception: visual heuristics in the perception of glossiness,” Curr. Biol. 22, R865–R866 (2012). [CrossRef]
  53. T. Vladusich, “Simultaneous contrast and gamut relativity in achromatic color perception,” Vis. Res. 69, 49–63 (2012). [CrossRef]
  54. T. Vladusich, “Gamut relativity: a new computational approach to brightness and lightness perception,” J. Vis. 13(1):14, 1–21 (2013). [CrossRef]
  55. T. Vladusich, “A re-interpretation of transparency perception in terms of gamut relativity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 30, 418–426 (2013). [CrossRef]
  56. T. Vladusich, “Brightness scaling according to gamut relativity,” Color. Res. Appl., to be published.
  57. R. W. Fleming and H. H. Bülthoff, “Low-level image cues in the perception of translucent materials,” ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 2, 346–382 (2005).
  58. J. T. Todd, J. F. Norman, and E. Mingolla, “Lightness constancy in the presence of specular highlights,” Psychol. Sci. 15, 33–39 (2004). [CrossRef]
  59. B. Xiao and D. H. Brainard, “Surface gloss and color perception of 3D objects,” Vis. Neurosci. 25, 371–385 (2008). [CrossRef]
  60. E. H. Adelson, “Perceptual organization and the judgment of brightness,” Science 262, 2042–2044 (1993). [CrossRef]
  61. A. D. Logvinenko and L. T. Maloney, “The proximity structure of achromatic surface colors and the impossibility of asymmetric lightness matching,” Percept. Psychophys. 68, 76–83 (2006). [CrossRef]
  62. A. D. Logvinenko and R. Tokunaga, “Lightness constancy and illumination discounting,” Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 73, 1886–1902 (2011).
  63. G. Wendt, F. Faul, and R. Mausfeld, “Highlight disparity contributes to the authenticity and strength of perceived glossiness,” J. Vis. 8(1):14, 1–10 (2008). [CrossRef]
  64. D. Wollschläger and B. L. Anderson, “The role of layered scene representations in color appearance,” Curr. Biol. 19, 430–435 (2009). [CrossRef]
  65. A. L. Gilchrist, “Perceived lightness depends on perceived spatial arrangement,” Science 195, 185–187 (1977). [CrossRef]
  66. S. Zdravković, E. Economou, and A. Gilchrist, “Lightness of an object under two illumination levels,” Perception 35, 1185–1201 (2006). [CrossRef]
  67. K. Doerschner, L. T. Maloney, and H. Boyaci, “Perceived glossiness in high dynamic range scenes,” J. Vis. 10(4):11, 9–11 (2010). [CrossRef]
  68. R. W. Fleming, F. Jäkel, and L. T. Maloney, “Visual perception of thick transparent materials,” Psychol. Sci. 22, 812–820 (2011). [CrossRef]
  69. M. Singh and B. L. Anderson, “Perceptual assignment of opacity to translucent surfaces: the role of image blur,” Perception 31, 531–552 (2002). [CrossRef]
  70. Y.-X. Ho, M. S. Landy, and L. T. Maloney, “Conjoint measurement of gloss and surface texture,” Psychol. Sci. 19, 196–204 (2008). [CrossRef]
  71. M. S. Landy, “Visual perception: a gloss on surface properties,” Nature 447, 158–159 (2007). [CrossRef]
  72. E. Stewart, “The Gelb effect,” J. Exp. Psychol. 57, 235–242 (1959). [CrossRef]
  73. L. E. Arend and R. Goldstein, “Lightness and brightness over spatial illumination gradients,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 1929–1936 (1990). [CrossRef]
  74. K. Doerschner, H. Boyaci, and L. T. Maloney, “Estimating the glossiness transfer function induced by illumination change and testing its transitivity,” J. Vis. 10(4):8, 1–9 (2010). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited