Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T23:03:53.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Image statistics at the point of gaze during human navigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2009

CONSTANTIN A. ROTHKOPF*
Affiliation:
Center for Visual Science, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
DANA H. BALLARD
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
*
*Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Constantin A. Rothkopf, Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1, 60438 Frankfurt, Germany. E-mail: rothkopf@fias.uni-frankfurt.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theories of efficient sensory processing have considered the regularities of image properties due to the structure of the environment in order to explain properties of neuronal representations of the visual world. The regularities imposed on the input to the visual system due to the regularities of the active selection process mediated by the voluntary movements of the eyes have been considered to a much lesser degree. This is surprising, given that the active nature of vision is well established. The present article investigates statistics of image features at the center of gaze of human subjects navigating through a virtual environment and avoiding and approaching different objects. The analysis shows that contrast can be significantly higher or lower at fixation location compared to random locations, depending on whether subjects avoid or approach targets. Similarly, significant differences in the distribution of responses of model simple and complex cells between horizontal and vertical orientations are found over timescales of tens of seconds. By clustering the model simple cell responses, it is established that gaze was directed toward three distinct features of intermediate complexity the vast majority of time. Thus, this study demonstrates and quantifies how the visuomotor tasks of approaching and avoiding objects during navigation determine feature statistics of the input to the visual system through the combined influence on body and eye movements.

Information

Type
Natural Scene Statistics and Natural Tasks
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Six representative views of the scene as seen by a subject during execution of the tasks. Subjects navigated along a walkway situated within a cityscape while avoiding blue cylindrical obstacles or approaching purple cylindrical targets.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. The set of Gabor functions used in encoding the image. Left: The normalized even Gabor functions used for calculating the model receptive filed responses at different spatial scales and orientations. Right: The set of corresponding normalized odd-symmetric Gabor functions.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Log–log plot of the rotational averages of the estimated power spectra for different image sets. The curves correspond to the slope of the rotational average of the power spectra as estimated using Bartlett’s method for a set of natural images, the object texture in the VR experiments, and multiple views from the subjects perspective in the VR experiments. Slopes of −2 corresponding to 1/f2 envelopes are shown as dashed lines.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Example average histograms of filter responses for a subset of the Gabor filters. The histograms are calculated for the filter responses to odd Gabors with spatial frequency of 1.6 cycles/deg on the set of 50 images obtained from the view of subjects walking down the walkway in the virtual environment.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. RMS contrast as function of image patch size for different image ensembles and tasks. Left: Comparison of contrasts between image sets at the point of gaze for the conditions pickup and avoid and at random locations. Right: Comparison of contrasts as a function of patch size for the avoid and pickup conditions as in the left plot. Additionally, for the contrast for gaze falling on the litter objects is plotted for the pickup condition, and the contrast for gaze falling on the obstacles is plotted for the avoid condition.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Histograms of model simple cell responses. Left: Normalized responses to vertical Gabor filter for the pickup and avoid conditions. Right: Normalized responses to horizontal Gabor filter for the pickup and avoid conditions. The error bars correspond to the standard errors around the means.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Histograms of model complex cell responses. Left: Normalized responses of vertical model complex cell to image patches at fixation location for the pickup and avoid conditions. Right: Normalized responses of horizontal model complex cell to image patches at fixation location for the pickup and avoid conditions. The error bars correspond to the standard errors around the means.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. The set of 36 cluster centers obtained from the image representation using the Gabor filters. These image patches are obtained by reprojecting the model simple cell responses at the center of the 36 clusters back into image space. These patches can be regarded as a set of features that can be utilized in representing the vast majority of image patches in the scenes of the visual world of the experiment. The patches are sorted in descending order of their relative frequency in all considered scenes from the top left corner to the bottom right corner.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. The set of 36 cluster centers obtained from the image representation using the derivative of Gaussian filters and their relative frequencies. Top: The found clusters sorted from the highest frequency within the scenes on the left to the lowest frequency on the right. Top histogram: The relative frequency of gaze being directed to the 36 features in the pickup condition. Middle histogram: The relative frequency of gaze being directed to the 36 features in the avoid condition. Bottom histogram: The relative frequency of the 36 features in the scenes.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Horizontal and vertical marginal distributions of gaze targets on litter objects in the pickup condition (left) and on obstacles in the avoid condition (right). These distributions are obtained using data from all 19 subjects. The plots with targets marked on the objects are obtained from the data of subject MB and are representative of the entire data set.