Perception of complex aggregates

ABSTRACT

Aggregates of individual objects, such as forests, crowds, and piles of fruit, are a common source of complexity in computer graphics scenes. When viewing an aggregate, observers attend less to individual objects and focus more on overall properties such as numerosity, variety, and arrangement. Paradoxically, rendering and modeling costs increase with aggregate complexity, exactly when observers are attending less to individual objects.

In this paper we take some first steps to characterize the limits of visual coding of aggregates to efficiently represent their appearance in scenes. We describe psychophysical experiments that explore the roles played by the geometric and material properties of individual objects in observers' abilities to discriminate different aggregate collections. Based on these experiments we derive metrics to predict when two aggregates have the same appearance, even when composed of different objects. In a follow-up experiment we confirm that these metrics can be used to predict the appearance of a range of realistic aggregates. Finally, as a proof-of-concept we show how these new aggregate perception metrics can be applied to simplify scenes by allowing substitution of geometrically simpler aggregates for more complex ones without changing appearance.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bacon, W. F., and Egeth, H. E. 1991. Local processes in preattentive feature detection. J. Exp. Psych.: Human Percep. and Perf. 17, 77--90.
• 2: Beck, J. 1972. Similarity grouping and peripheral discriminability under uncertainty. American Journal of Psychology 85, 1--19.
• 3: Beck, J. 1982. Textural segmentation. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 285--317.
• 4: Bergen, J. R., and Adelson, E. H. 1988. Early vision and texture perception. Nature 333, 6171, 363--365.
• 5: Andrew Brownbill, Reducing the storage required to render L-system based models, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta., Canada, 1998
• 6: Jonathan Cohen , Marc Olano , Dinesh Manocha, Appearance-preserving simplification, Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.115-122, July 1998 [doi>10.1145/280814.280832]
• 7: Robert L. Cook , John Halstead , Maxwell Planck , David Ryu, Stochastic simplification of aggregate detail, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.26 n.3, July 2007
• 8: Paul E. Debevec , Jitendra Malik, Recovering high dynamic range radiance maps from photographs, Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.369-378, August 1997 [doi>10.1145/258734.258884]
• 9: Desimone, R., and Duncan, J. 1995. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience 18, 193--222.
• 10: Oliver Deussen , Pat Hanrahan , Bernd Lintermann , Radomír Měch , Matt Pharr , Przemyslaw Prusinkiewicz, Realistic modeling and rendering of plant ecosystems, Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.275-286, July 1998 [doi>10.1145/280814.280898]
• 11: Daniel Dunbar , Greg Humphreys, A spatial data structure for fast Poisson-disk sample generation, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.25 n.3, July 2006
• 12: Ferwerda, J. A., Pellacini, F., and Greenberg, D. P. 2001. A psychophysically-based model of surface gloss perception. In Proceedings of the SPIE: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging VI, vol. 4299, 291--301.
• 13: Fleming, R. W., Torralba, A., and Adelson, E. H. 2004. Specular reflections and the perception of shape. Journal of Vision 4, 9, 798--820.
• 14: Found, A., and Müller, H. J. 1995. Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: further evidence for a 'dimension weighting' account. Perception and Psychophysics 58, 1, 88--101.
• 15: Gurnsey, R., and Browse, R. A. 1989. Asymmetries in visual texture discrimination. Spatial Vision 4, 31--44.
• 16: John C. Hart, The object instancing paradigm for linear fractal modeling, Proceedings of the conference on Graphics interface '92, p.224-231, September 1992, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
• 17: Heaps, C., and Handel, S. 1999. Similarity and features of natural textures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25, 2, 299--320.
• 18: Itti, L., and Koch, C. 2001. Computational modeling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2, 3 (Mar), 194--203.
• 19: Julesz, B. 1962. Visual pattern discrimination. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 8, 84--92.
• 20: Julesz, B. 1981. Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions. Nature 290, 91--97.
• 21: Erum Arif Khan , Erik Reinhard , Roland W. Fleming , Heinrich H. Bülthoff, Image-based material editing, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.25 n.3, July 2006
• 22: Koch, C., and Ullman, S. 1985. Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology 4, 219--227.
• 23: Koffka, K. 1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York, NY.
• 24: Chang Ha Lee , Amitabh Varshney , David W. Jacobs, Mesh saliency, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.24 n.3, July 2005
• 25: David P. Luebke , Benjamin Hallen, Perceptually-Driven Simplification for Interactive Rendering, Proceedings of the 12th Eurographics Workshop on Rendering Techniques, p.223-234, June 25-27, 2001
• 26: David Luebke , Benjamin Watson , Jonathan D. Cohen , Martin Reddy , Amitabh Varshney, Level of Detail for 3D Graphics, Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, 2002
• 27: Malik, J., and Perona, P. 1990. Preattentive texture discrimination with early vision mechanisms. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 7, 923--932.
• 28: Mantiuk, R., Daly, S., Myszkowski, K., and Seidel, H.-P. 2005. Predicting visible differences in high dynamic range images - model and its calibration. In Proceeindgs of the SPIE: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging X, vol. 5666, 204--214.
• 29: Marr, D. 1976. Early processing of visual information. Phil. Trans. of the Royal Society London B 275, 483--519.
• 30: Nothdurft, H. C. 1985. Sensitivity for structure gradient in texture discrimination tasks. Vision Research 25, 1957--1968.
• 31: Aude Oliva , Antonio Torralba, Modeling the Shape of the Scene: A Holistic Representation of the Spatial Envelope, International Journal of Computer Vision, v.42 n.3, p.145-175, May-June 2001 [doi>10.1023/A:1011139631724]
• 32: Oliva, A., Mack, M. L., Srestha, M., and Peeper, A. 2004. Identifying the perceptual dimensions of visual complexity of scenes. 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.
• 33: Palmer, S. E. 1999. Vision science: From Photons to Phenomenology. Bradford Books/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
• 34: Ken Perlin, Improving noise, Proceedings of the 29th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, July 23-26, 2002, San Antonio, Texas
• 35: Potter, M. C. 1975. Meaning in visual search. Science 187, 4180, 965--966.
• 36: Ganesh Ramanarayanan , James Ferwerda , Bruce Walter , Kavita Bala, Visual equivalence: towards a new standard for image fidelity, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.26 n.3, July 2007
• 37: A. Ravishankar Rao , Gerald L. Lohse, Identifying high level features of texture perception, CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing, v.55 n.3, p.218-233, May 1993 [doi>10.1006/cgip.1993.1016]
• 38: Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., and Nakano, L. 2007. Measuring visual clutter. J. Vis. 7, 2 (8), 1--22.
• 39: Rushmeier, H., Rogowitz, B. E., and Piatko, C. 2000. Perceptual issues in substituting texture for geometry. In Proceedings of the SPIE: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging V, vol. 3959, 372--383.
• 40: Sagi, D., and Julesz, B. 1987. Short-range limitation on detection of feature differences. Spatial Vision 2, 1, 39--49.
• 41: Alvy Ray Smith, Plants, fractals, and formal languages, Proceedings of the 11th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.1-10, January 1984
• 42: Ivan E. Sutherland, Sketchpad: a man-machine graphical communication system, Proceedings of the May 21-23, 1963, spring joint computer conference, May 21-23, 1963, Detroit, Michigan [doi>10.1145/1461551.1461591]
• 43: Theeuwes, J. 2004. Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11, 1, 65--70.
• 44: Todd, J. T., Norman, J. F., Koenderink, J. J., and Kappers, A. M. L. 1997. Effects of texture, illumination, and surface reflectance on stereoscopic shape perception. Perception 26, 7, 807--822.
• 45: Treisman, A., and Gelade, G. 1980. A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 12, 97--136.
• 46: Peter Vangorp , Jurgen Laurijssen , Philip Dutré, The influence of shape on the perception of material reflectance, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.26 n.3, July 2007
• 47: Bruce Walter , Sebastian Fernandez , Adam Arbree , Kavita Bala , Michael Donikian , Donald P. Greenberg, Lightcuts: a scalable approach to illumination, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.24 n.3, July 2005
• 48: Bruce Walter , Adam Arbree , Kavita Bala , Donald P. Greenberg, Multidimensional lightcuts, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.25 n.3, July 2006
• 49: Gregory J. Ward, Measuring and modeling anisotropic reflection, Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, p.265-272, July 1992
• 50: Watson, A. B., and Pelli, D. G. 1983. Quest: a bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception and Psychophysics 33, 2, 113--120.
• 51: Benjamin Watson , Neff Walker , Larry F. Hodges, Supra-threshold control of peripheral LOD, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.23 n.3, August 2004
• 52: Wichmann, F. A., and Hill, N. J. 2001. The psychometric function ii: Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Perception and Psychophysics 63, 8, 1314--1329.
• 53: Wolfe, J. M. 1998. Visual search. University College London Press, London.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.7 Three-Dimensional Graphics and Realism

Keywords:
aggregates, complexity, perceptually-based modeling