↓ Skip to main content

How Sensitive Is the Human Visual System to the Local Statistics of Natural Images?

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Sensitive Is the Human Visual System to the Local Statistics of Natural Images?
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002873
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly E. Gerhard, Felix A. Wichmann, Matthias Bethge

Abstract

A key hypothesis in sensory system neuroscience is that sensory representations are adapted to the statistical regularities in sensory signals and thereby incorporate knowledge about the outside world. Supporting this hypothesis, several probabilistic models of local natural image regularities have been proposed that reproduce neural response properties. Although many such physiological links have been made, these models have not been linked directly to visual sensitivity. Previous psychophysical studies of sensitivity to natural image regularities focus on global perception of large images, but much less is known about sensitivity to local natural image regularities. We present a new paradigm for controlled psychophysical studies of local natural image regularities and compare how well such models capture perceptually relevant image content. To produce stimuli with precise statistics, we start with a set of patches cut from natural images and alter their content to generate a matched set whose joint statistics are equally likely under a probabilistic natural image model. The task is forced choice to discriminate natural patches from model patches. The results show that human observers can learn to discriminate the higher-order regularities in natural images from those of model samples after very few exposures and that no current model is perfect for patches as small as 5 by 5 pixels or larger. Discrimination performance was accurately predicted by model likelihood, an information theoretic measure of model efficacy, indicating that the visual system possesses a surprisingly detailed knowledge of natural image higher-order correlations, much more so than current image models. We also perform three cue identification experiments to interpret how model features correspond to perceptually relevant image features.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 5%
Germany 6 4%
Canada 2 1%
Switzerland 2 1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 110 82%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 27%
Researcher 27 20%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Professor 10 7%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 14 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 35 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 22%
Computer Science 18 13%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Engineering 8 6%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 22 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,896,698
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#5,259
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,602
of 288,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#64
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.