Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
2.3
Journals
Vision
Special Issues
Selected Papers from the Scottish Vision Group Meeting 2019
share announcement

Selected Papers from the Scottish Vision Group Meeting 2019

A special issue of Vision (ISSN 2411-5150).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 August 2019) | Viewed by 20336

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Olivier Penacchio

E-Mail
Guest Editor
School of Psychology & Neuroscience, St Mary’s Quad, South Street, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK
Interests: vision; computational neuroscience; sensory ecology; defensive coloration
Dr. Alasdair Clarke

E-Mail
Guest Editor
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester Campus, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, UK
Interests: vision; visual search; computational modelling; decision making
Dr. Anna Hughes

E-Mail
Guest Editor
College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK
Interests: vision; sensory ecology; camouflage; motion perception
Prof. Xavier Otazu

E-Mail
Guest Editor
Computer Vision Center and Computer Science Department, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Valles (Bellaterra), Spain
Interests: computational neuroscience; colour perception; visual cortex

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Since it was first launched in 2001, the Scottish Vision Group has been a key meeting for vision scientists in Scotland, and has attracted vision scientists from the United Kingdom, Europe, and beyond. This small conference is held annually at different places in Scotland. Both its friendly atmosphere and stunning Scottish sceneries make it prone to relaxed scientific discussions. In particular, it provides scientists at an early stage of their career with an excellent opportunity to communicate their work. The 2019 edition of SVG was held at Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, a higher education college situated in the south of the Isle of Skye. The meeting started with a panel discussion on virtual reality (VR), sponsored by Facebook Reality Labs, led by Prof. Paul Hibbard (University of Essex), Dr. Gizem Rufo (Facebook Reality Labs), and Dr. Rafał Mantiuk (University of Cambridge). The discussion focussed on the advances VR can bring to vision science, as well as the progress required in VR technology in order to accommodate vision scientists’ needs. In the keynote lecture, sponsored by MDPI Vision, Prof. Iain Gilchrist (University of Bristol) highlighted the critical role of saccadic eye movements in vision, with a wealth of examples in domains including face processing, response time, saliency, reward, and decision making. The rest of the conference was dedicated to talks on a variety of topics, including, but certainly not limited to, attention, eye movements, search, motion perception, multisensory perception, colour, material properties, rivalry, virtual reality, aging, and 3D vision. This Special Issue captures part of the width of research presented at SVG’s 2019 edition by proposing original contributions based on the proceedings of the meeting.

Dr. Olivier Penacchio
Dr. Alasdair Clarke
Dr. Anna Hughes
Prof. Xavier Otazu
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Vision is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Published Papers (5 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

24 pages, 2008 KiB  
Article
On the Aperture Problem of Binocular 3D Motion Perception
by Martin Lages and Suzanne Heron
Vision 2019, 3(4), 64; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3040064 - 19 Nov 2019
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 4425
Abstract
Like many predators, humans have forward-facing eyes that are set a short distance apart so that an extensive region of the visual field is seen from two different points of view. The human visual system can establish a three-dimensional (3D) percept from the [...] Read more.
Like many predators, humans have forward-facing eyes that are set a short distance apart so that an extensive region of the visual field is seen from two different points of view. The human visual system can establish a three-dimensional (3D) percept from the projection of images into the left and right eye. How the visual system integrates local motion and binocular depth in order to accomplish 3D motion perception is still under investigation. Here, we propose a geometric-statistical model that combines noisy velocity constraints with a spherical motion prior to solve the aperture problem in 3D. In two psychophysical experiments, it is shown that instantiations of this model can explain how human observers disambiguate 3D line motion direction behind a circular aperture. We discuss the implications of our results for the processing of motion and dynamic depth in the visual system. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the Scottish Vision Group Meeting 2019)
►▼ Show Figures

Graphical abstract

14 pages, 443 KiB  
Article
Inefficient Eye Movements: Gamification Improves Task Execution, But Not Fixation Strategy
by Warren R. G. James, Josephine Reuther, Ellen Angus, Alasdair D. F. Clarke and Amelia R. Hunt
Vision 2019, 3(3), 48; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3030048 - 18 Sep 2019
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2673
Abstract
Decisions about where to fixate are highly variable and often inefficient. In the current study, we investigated whether such decisions would improve with increased motivation. Participants had to detect a discrimination target, which would appear in one of two boxes, but only after [...] Read more.
Decisions about where to fixate are highly variable and often inefficient. In the current study, we investigated whether such decisions would improve with increased motivation. Participants had to detect a discrimination target, which would appear in one of two boxes, but only after they chose a location to fixate. The distance between boxes determines which location to fixate to maximise the probability of being able to see the target: participants should fixate between the two boxes when they are close together, and on one of the two boxes when they are far apart. We “gamified” this task, giving participants easy-to-track rewards that were contingent on discrimination accuracy. Their decisions and performance were compared to previous results that were gathered in the absence of this additional motivation. We used a Bayesian beta regression model to estimate the size of the effect and associated variance. The results demonstrate that discrimination accuracy does indeed improve in the presence of performance-related rewards. However, there was no difference in eye movement strategy between the two groups, suggesting this improvement in accuracy was not due to the participants making more optimal eye movement decisions. Instead, the motivation encouraged participants to expend more effort on other aspects of the task, such as paying more attention to the boxes and making fewer response errors. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the Scottish Vision Group Meeting 2019)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

24 pages, 3050 KiB  
Article
Spatial Frequency Tuning and Transfer of Perceptual Learning for Motion Coherence Reflects the Tuning Properties of Global Motion Processing
by Jordi M. Asher, Vincenzo Romei and Paul B. Hibbard
Vision 2019, 3(3), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3030044 - 2 Sep 2019
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 4945
Abstract
Perceptual learning is typically highly specific to the stimuli and task used during training. However, recently, it has been shown that training on global motion can transfer to untrained tasks, reflecting the generalising properties of mechanisms at this level of processing. We investigated [...] Read more.
Perceptual learning is typically highly specific to the stimuli and task used during training. However, recently, it has been shown that training on global motion can transfer to untrained tasks, reflecting the generalising properties of mechanisms at this level of processing. We investigated (i) if feedback was required for learning in a motion coherence task, (ii) the transfer across the spatial frequency of training on a global motion coherence task and (iii) the transfer of this training to a measure of contrast sensitivity. For our first experiment, two groups, with and without feedback, trained for ten days on a broadband motion coherence task. Results indicated that feedback was a requirement for robust learning. For the second experiment, training consisted of five days of direction discrimination using one of three motion coherence stimuli (where individual elements were comprised of either broadband Gaussian blobs or low- or high-frequency random-dot Gabor patches), with trial-by-trial auditory feedback. A pre- and post-training assessment was conducted for each of the three types of global motion coherence conditions and high and low spatial frequency contrast sensitivity (both without feedback). Our training paradigm was successful at eliciting improvement in the trained tasks over the five days. Post-training assessments found evidence of transfer for the motion coherence task exclusively for the group trained on low spatial frequency elements. For the contrast sensitivity tasks, improved performance was observed for low- and high-frequency stimuli, following motion coherence training with broadband stimuli, and for low-frequency stimuli, following low-frequency training. Our findings are consistent with perceptual learning, which depends on the global stage of motion processing in higher cortical areas, which is broadly tuned for spatial frequency, with a preference for low frequencies. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the Scottish Vision Group Meeting 2019)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

5 pages, 539 KiB  
Perspective
The Sun/Moon Illusion in a Medieval Irish Astronomical Tract
by Helen E. Ross
Vision 2019, 3(3), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3030039 - 7 Aug 2019
Viewed by 3529
Abstract
The Irish Astronomical Tract is a 14th–15th century Gaelic document, based mainly on a Latin translation of the eighth-century Jewish astronomer Messahala. It contains a passage about the sun illusion—the apparent enlargement of celestial bodies when near the horizon compared to higher in [...] Read more.
The Irish Astronomical Tract is a 14th–15th century Gaelic document, based mainly on a Latin translation of the eighth-century Jewish astronomer Messahala. It contains a passage about the sun illusion—the apparent enlargement of celestial bodies when near the horizon compared to higher in the sky. This passage occurs in a chapter concerned with proving that the Earth is a globe rather than flat. Here the author denies that the change in size is caused by a change in the sun’s distance, and instead ascribes it (incorrectly) to magnification by atmospheric vapours, likening it to the bending of light when looking from air to water or through glass spectacles. This section does not occur in the Latin version of Messahala. The Irish author may have based the vapour account on Aristotle, Ptolemy or Cleomedes, or on later authors that relied on them. He seems to have been unaware of alternative perceptual explanations. The refraction explanation persists today in folk science. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the Scottish Vision Group Meeting 2019)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 5684 KiB  
Perspective
Ocular Equivocation: The Rivalry Between Wheatstone and Brewster
by Nicholas J. Wade
Vision 2019, 3(2), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision3020026 - 6 Jun 2019
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 4246
Abstract
Ocular equivocation was the term given by Brewster in 1844 to binocular contour rivalry seen with Wheatstone’s stereoscope. The rivalries between Wheatstone and Brewster were personal as well as perceptual. In the 1830s, both Wheatstone and Brewster came to stereoscopic vision armed with [...] Read more.
Ocular equivocation was the term given by Brewster in 1844 to binocular contour rivalry seen with Wheatstone’s stereoscope. The rivalries between Wheatstone and Brewster were personal as well as perceptual. In the 1830s, both Wheatstone and Brewster came to stereoscopic vision armed with their individual histories of research on vision. Brewster was an authority on physical optics and had devised the kaleidoscope; Wheatstone extended his research on audition to render acoustic patterns visible with his kaleidophone or phonic kaleidoscope. Both had written on subjective visual phenomena, a topic upon which they first clashed at the inaugural meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1832 (the year Wheatstone made the first stereoscopes). Wheatstone published his account of the mirror stereoscope in 1838; Brewster’s initial reception of it was glowing but he later questioned Wheatstone’s priority. They both described investigations of binocular contour rivalry but their interpretations diverged. As was the case for stereoscopic vision, Wheatstone argued for central processing whereas Brewster’s analysis was peripheral and based on visible direction. Brewster’s lenticular stereoscope and binocular camera were described in 1849. They later clashed over Brewster’s claim that the Chimenti drawings were made for a 16th-century stereoscope. The rivalry between Wheatstone and Brewster is illustrated with anaglyphs that can be viewed with red/cyan glasses and in Universal Freeview format; they include rivalling ‘perceptual portraits’ as well as examples of the stimuli used to study ocular equivocation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Selected Papers from the Scottish Vision Group Meeting 2019)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-5
Back to TopTop