Oblique effect is the name given to the relative deficiency in perceptual performance for oblique contours as compared to the performance for horizontal or vertical contours.
The earliest known observation of this effect came about in 1861 when Ernst Mach [1] completed an experiment in which he set a line to make it appear parallel to an adjoining one, and found observers' errors to be least for horizontal and vertical orientations and largest for an inclination of 45 degrees. The effect can be demonstrated for many visual tasks and was named oblique effect in the widely cited article by Stuart Appelle. [2]
The effect is exhibited predominantly in tasks involving discrimination of the angle of tilt of patterns or contours. People are very good at detecting whether a picture is hung vertical, but are two- to fourfold worse for a 45-degree oblique contour, even when a comparison is available. However there is no oblique deficit in some other tasks, such as judgment of lengths. Similarly, while it is harder to judge the direction of motion when it is oblique, this is not the case for speed.
The figure on the right shows the performance when an observer makes judgments about the length (top) and the orientation (bottom) of a line, in eight orientations around the clock.
Even the immediate appearance of the form of a figure, often called gestalt, changes on a 45-degree rotation—the geometrical congruity of the square and the diamond does not extend to their perception as figures (see left) as was emphasized by Ernst Mach.
As with geometrical-optical illusions the oblique effect can be examined at two levels. The physiological one looks at the neural apparatus. Much pertinent information has been gathered here, yet the phenomenon was discovered in, and has ultimate relevance to, the whole organism's performance. Hence it is not contradictory to follow two separate tracks of explanation.
Neural processing of contours was highlighted by the classical research by Hubel and Wiesel [3] which revealed neural units right at the entrance of visual signals into the brain that respond preferentially to lines and edges. When the distribution of preferred orientation of these units was examined, there were fewer in the oblique meridians than in the vertical and horizontal. [4]
Orientation differences also occur in testing the visual brain with probes for cell connectivity [5] and with imaging techniques. [6]
However, in contrast to the strong behavioral effect, evidence for orientation selectivity bias in primary visual cortex is weak and controversial. Actually, many human fMRI studies have failed to see this biased activity in primary visual cortex. [7] Rather, more recent studies have suggested that, oblique effect may be due to selectivity for cardinal (i.e. horizontal and vertical) orientations in higher level visual areas and more specifically in parahippocampal place area (PPA), [8] an area devoted to scene perception. [9] This finding is supported by the fact that, among all visual object categories, perception of scenes (both natural and man-made environments) receives more processing benefit from the oblique effect and higher visual acuity for horizontal and vertical contours, due to their unique structure. [10]
Nevertheless, there is an oblique effect for target configurations that do not directly address these "oriented" neural elements early in the visual path into the brain. [11] Regardless of where in the brain of the human or animals an oblique effect is found, one would still like to know whether it is an inevitable consequence of the way neural signals are processed, or whether it is a minor error that nature hadn't been bothered to correct, or whether it fulfills a function in making us better in handling our visual environment. Proposing a "purpose" of the oblique effect, and developing scientific support for it is still a work in progress. A popular concept is that we live in a carpentered environment. Attempts at empirical explanations of perceptual visual phenomena have led to the examination of the orientation distribution of contours in the everyday visual world. [12]
Competing explanations have to contend with questions, not yet finalized, of innateness of horizontal/vertical superiority, of body symmetry in anatomical organization, of methodology of measurement, and particularly, of issues associated with perceptual development in infants and children, and across cultures.
Meridian: In vision, a plane containing the anterior-posterior axis of the eye. According to standards in the eye professions, the left side of the horizontal meridian, as seen by the subject, has 0-deg orientation, and orientations increase in a clockwise direction, again as seen by subject.
Cardinal directions are horizontal and vertical.
The horizontal effect is an extension of the oblique effect in which... When presented [with] a natural or other broad-band scene, people see oblique content the best and they actually see horizontal content the worst, with vertical usually falling in between. [13]
Vertical-horizontal illusion, the overestimation of vertical distances in vision, is not generally encompassed by the oblique effect, which mostly lumps the vertical and horizontal together in making comparisons with the obliques.
The visual cortex of the brain is the area of the cerebral cortex that processes visual information. It is located in the occipital lobe. Sensory input originating from the eyes travels through the lateral geniculate nucleus in the thalamus and then reaches the visual cortex. The area of the visual cortex that receives the sensory input from the lateral geniculate nucleus is the primary visual cortex, also known as visual area 1 (V1), Brodmann area 17, or the striate cortex. The extrastriate areas consist of visual areas 2, 3, 4, and 5.
In visual perception, an optical illusion is an illusion caused by the visual system and characterized by a visual percept that arguably appears to differ from reality. Illusions come in a wide variety; their categorization is difficult because the underlying cause is often not clear but a classification proposed by Richard Gregory is useful as an orientation. According to that, there are three main classes: physical, physiological, and cognitive illusions, and in each class there are four kinds: Ambiguities, distortions, paradoxes, and fictions. A classical example for a physical distortion would be the apparent bending of a stick half immerged in water; an example for a physiological paradox is the motion aftereffect. An example for a physiological fiction is an afterimage. Three typical cognitive distortions are the Ponzo, Poggendorff, and Müller-Lyer illusion. Physical illusions are caused by the physical environment, e.g. by the optical properties of water. Physiological illusions arise in the eye or the visual pathway, e.g. from the effects of excessive stimulation of a specific receptor type. Cognitive visual illusions are the result of unconscious inferences and are perhaps those most widely known.
The Poggendorff illusion is a geometrical-optical illusion that involves the misperception of the position of one segment of a transverse line that has been interrupted by the contour of an intervening structure. It is named after Johann Christian Poggendorff, the editor of the journal, who discovered it in the figures Johann Karl Friedrich Zöllner submitted when first reporting on what is now known as the Zöllner illusion, in 1860. The magnitude of the illusion depends on the properties of the obscuring pattern and the nature of its borders.
David Hunter Hubel was an American Canadian neurophysiologist noted for his studies of the structure and function of the visual cortex. He was co-recipient with Torsten Wiesel of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, for their discoveries concerning information processing in the visual system. For much of his career, Hubel worked as the Professor of Neurobiology at Johns Hopkins University and Harvard Medical School. In 1978, Hubel and Wiesel were awarded the Louisa Gross Horwitz Prize from Columbia University. In 1983, Hubel received the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement.
Neuroesthetics is a relatively recent sub-discipline of applied aesthetics. Empirical aesthetics takes a scientific approach to the study of aesthetic experience of art, music, or any object that can give rise to aesthetic judgments. Neuroesthetics is a term coined by Semir Zeki in 1999 and received its formal definition in 2002 as the scientific study of the neural bases for the contemplation and creation of a work of art. Neuroesthetics uses neuroscience to explain and understand the aesthetic experiences at the neurological level. The topic attracts scholars from many disciplines including neuroscientists, art historians, artists, art therapists and psychologists.
Motion perception is the process of inferring the speed and direction of elements in a scene based on visual, vestibular and proprioceptive inputs. Although this process appears straightforward to most observers, it has proven to be a difficult problem from a computational perspective, and difficult to explain in terms of neural processing.
Stereopsis is the component of depth perception retrieved through binocular vision. Stereopsis is not the only contributor to depth perception, but it is a major one. Binocular vision happens because each eye receives a different image because they are in slightly different positions on one's head. These positional differences are referred to as "horizontal disparities" or, more generally, "binocular disparities". Disparities are processed in the visual cortex of the brain to yield depth perception. While binocular disparities are naturally present when viewing a real three-dimensional scene with two eyes, they can also be simulated by artificially presenting two different images separately to each eye using a method called stereoscopy. The perception of depth in such cases is also referred to as "stereoscopic depth".
The Hering illusion is one of the geometrical-optical illusions and was discovered by the German physiologist Ewald Hering in 1861. When two straight and parallel lines are presented in front of radial background, the lines appear as if they were bowed outwards. The Orbison illusion is one of its variants, while the Wundt illusion produces a similar, but inverted effect.
Microsaccades are a kind of fixational eye movement. They are small, jerk-like, involuntary eye movements, similar to miniature versions of voluntary saccades. They typically occur during prolonged visual fixation, not only in humans, but also in animals with foveal vision. Microsaccade amplitudes vary from 2 to 120 arcminutes. The first empirical evidence for their existence was provided by Robert Darwin, the father of Charles Darwin.
Neuronal tuning refers to the hypothesized property of brain cells by which they selectively represent a particular type of sensory, association, motor, or cognitive information. Some neuronal responses have been hypothesized to be optimally tuned to specific patterns through experience. Neuronal tuning can be strong and sharp, as observed in primary visual cortex, or weak and broad, as observed in neural ensembles. Single neurons are hypothesized to be simultaneously tuned to several modalities, such as visual, auditory, and olfactory. Neurons hypothesized to be tuned to different signals are often hypothesized to integrate information from the different sources. In computational models called neural networks, such integration is the major principle of operation. The best examples of neuronal tuning can be seen in the visual, auditory, olfactory, somatosensory, and memory systems, although due to the small number of stimuli tested the generality of neuronal tuning claims is still an open question.
In vision, filling-in phenomena are those responsible for the completion of missing information across the physiological blind spot, and across natural and artificial scotomata. There is also evidence for similar mechanisms of completion in normal visual analysis. Classical demonstrations of perceptual filling-in involve filling in at the blind spot in monocular vision, and images stabilized on the retina either by means of special lenses, or under certain conditions of steady fixation. For example, naturally in monocular vision at the physiological blind spot, the percept is not a hole in the visual field, but the content is “filled-in” based on information from the surrounding visual field. When a textured stimulus is presented centered on but extending beyond the region of the blind spot, a continuous texture is perceived. This partially inferred percept is paradoxically considered more reliable than a percept based on external input..
Complex cells can be found in the primary visual cortex (V1), the secondary visual cortex (V2), and Brodmann area 19 (V3).
In cognitive neuroscience, visual modularity is an organizational concept concerning how vision works. The way in which the primate visual system operates is currently under intense scientific scrutiny. One dominant thesis is that different properties of the visual world require different computational solutions which are implemented in anatomically/functionally distinct regions that operate independently – that is, in a modular fashion.
A hypercomplex cell is a type of visual processing neuron in the mammalian cerebral cortex. Initially discovered by David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel in 1965, hypercomplex cells are defined by the property of end-stopping, which is a decrease in firing strength with increasingly larger stimuli. The sensitivity to stimulus length is accompanied by selectivity for the specific orientation, motion, and direction of stimuli. For example, a hypercomplex cell may only respond to a line at 45˚ that travels upward. Elongating the line would result in a proportionately weaker response. Ultimately, hypercomplex cells can provide a means for the brain to visually perceive corners and curves in the environment by identifying the ends of a given stimulus.
Feature detection is a process by which the nervous system sorts or filters complex natural stimuli in order to extract behaviorally relevant cues that have a high probability of being associated with important objects or organisms in their environment, as opposed to irrelevant background or noise.
Geometrical-optical illusions are visual illusions, also optical illusions, in which the geometrical properties of what is seen differ from those of the corresponding objects in the visual field.
Orientation columns are organized regions of neurons that are excited by visual line stimuli of varying angles. These columns are located in the primary visual cortex (V1) and span multiple cortical layers. The geometry of the orientation columns are arranged in slabs that are perpendicular to the surface of the primary visual cortex.
Due to the effect of a spatial context or temporal context, the perceived orientation of a test line or grating pattern can appear tilted away from its physical orientation. The tilt illusion (TI) is the phenomenon that the perceived orientation of a test line or grating is altered by the presence of surrounding lines or grating with a different orientation. And the tilt aftereffect (TAE) is the phenomenon that the perceived orientation is changed after prolonged inspection of another oriented line or grating.
Surround suppression is where the relative firing rate of a neuron may under certain conditions decrease when a particular stimulus is enlarged. It has been observed in electrophysiology studies of the brain and has been noted in many sensory neurons, most notably in the early visual system. Surround suppression is defined as a reduction in the activity of a neuron in response to a stimulus outside its classical receptive field.
The V1 Saliency Hypothesis, or V1SH is a theory about V1, the primary visual cortex (V1). It proposes that the V1 in primates creates a saliency map of the visual field to guide visual attention or gaze shifts exogenously.