Combining occlusion and disparity information: a computational model of stereoscopic depth perception.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three-dimensional structure of the world can be reconstructed using the differences, or binocular disparities, between the positions and appearance of the images of the same objects on the two retinae. Occlusion of one object by another gives rise to areas visible only in one eye, called monocular occlusions, for which binocular disparities cannot be computed. Nevertheless, monocular occlusions can be perceived at precise locations in depth and can even induce the perception of illusory occluding surfaces. Since a growing body of literature has shown that monocular occlusions are an integral part of stereoscopic depth perception, it is important that we understand the mechanisms of depth extraction from monocular occlusions. Psychophysical experiments suggest that the visual system is able to assign depth from monocularly occluded areas based on the constraints imposed by the viewing geometry. However, none of the existing models of stereopsis use viewing geometry as the primary mechanism for quantitative and qualitative depth extraction in occluded areas. Moreover, no model has been shown to recover depth and structure of illusory occluding surfaces induced by the presence of monocular regions. We propose a new model of depth perception from disparity and monocular occlusions in which monocularly occluded areas are detected explicitly and quantitative depth from occlusions is calculated based on occlusion geometry. The model represents several levels of processing in the visual cortex and includes complex interactions between disparity and monocular occlusion detectors. It successfully reconstructs depth in a large range of stimuli including random-dot stereograms, illusory occluder stimuli, da Vinci arrangements and natural images. Thus we demonstrate that a dedicated set of mechanisms for processing of monocular occlusions combined with classical disparity detectors can underpin a wide range of stereoscopic percepts. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".