Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T22:27:00.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artistic representations: Clues to efficient coding in human vision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2011

DANIEL J. GRAHAM  and
MING MENG
DANIEL J. GRAHAM*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Basic Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
MING MENG
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire
*
*Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Daniel J. Graham, Department of Psychological Basic Research University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, Vienna 1010, Austria. E-mail: artstats@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In what ways is mammalian vision—and in particular, human vision—efficiently adapted to its ecology? We suggest that human visual artwork, which is made for the human eye, holds clues that could help answer this question. Paintings are readily perceived as representations of natural objects and scenes, yet statistical relationships between natural images and paintings are nontrivial. Although spatial frequency content is generally similar for art and natural images, paintings cannot reproduce the dynamic range of luminance in scenes. Through a variety of image manipulations designed to alter image intensity distributions and spatial contrast, we here investigate the notion that artists’ representational strategies can efficiently capture salient features of natural images, and in particular, of faces. We report that humans perform near flawless discrimination of faces and nonfaces in both paintings and natural images, even for stimulus presentation durations of 12 ms. In addition, contrast negation and up-down inversion have minimal to no effect on performance for both image types, whereas 1/f noise addition significantly affects discrimination performance for art more than for natural images. Together, these results suggest artists create representations that are highly efficient for transmitting perceptual information to the human brain.

Keywords

Coding efficiencyArt perceptionFace detectionNatural scene statisticsCortex

Information

Type
Evolution and eye design
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , July 2011 , pp. 371 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Atick, J.J. & Redlich, A.N. (1992). What does the retina know about natural scenes? Neural Computation 4, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bex, P.J., Mareschal, I. & Dakin, S.C. (2007). Contrast gain control in natural scenes. Journal of Vision 7, 1–12.Google Scholar
Biederman, I. & Kim, J.G. (2008). 17,000 years of depicting the junction of two smooth shapes. Perception 37, 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bindemann, M. & Burton, A.M. (2009). The role of color in human face detection. Cognitive Science 33, 1144–1156.Google Scholar
Brainard, D.H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 10, 433–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, M. (2001). The Art of All Colours: Mediaeval Recipe Books for Painters and Illuminators. London: Archetype.Google Scholar
Cutting, J.E., DeLong, J.E. & Nothelfer, C.E. (2010). Attention and the evolution of Hollywood film. Psychological Science 21, 440–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Waal, F. (2001). The Ape and the Sushi Master: Cultural Reflections by a Primatologist. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fagot, J., Martin-Malivel, J. & Depy, D. (2000). What is the evidence for an equivalence between objects and pictures in birds and non-human primates? In Picture Perception in Animals, ed. Fagot, J., Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Felsen, G. & Dan, Y. (2005). A natural approach to studying vision. Nature Neuroscience 8, 1643–1646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, D.J. (1987). Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response profiles of cortical cells. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and Image Science 4, 2379–2394.Google Scholar
Field, D. (1994). What is the goal of sensory coding? Neural Computation 6, 559–601.Google Scholar
Field, D.J., Hayes, A. & Hess, R. (1993). Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local ‘association field’. Vision Research 33, 173–193Google Scholar
Geisler, W.S. (2008). Visual perception and the statistical properties of natural scenes. Annual Review of Psychology 59, 167–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilad, S., Meng, M. & Sinha, P. (2009). Role of ordinal contrast relationships in face encoding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, 5353–5358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, D.J. & Field, D.J. (2007). Statistical regularities of art images and natural scenes: Spectra, sparseness and nonlinearities. Spatial Vision 21, 149–164.Google Scholar
Graham, D.J. & Field, D.J. (2008 a). Global nonlinear luminance compression in painted art. Proceedings of SPIE 6810, 68100K.Google Scholar
Graham, D.J. & Field, D.J. (2008 b). Natural images: Coding efficiency. In Encyclopedia of Neuroscience, Vol. VI, ed. Squire, L.R., pp. 19–27. Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graham, D.J. & Field, D.J. (2008 c). Variations in intensity statistics for representational and abstract art, and for art from the eastern and western hemispheres. Perception 37, 1341–1352.Google Scholar
Graham, D.J., Friedenberg, J.D., McCandless, C.H. & Rockmore, D.N. (2010 a). Preference for artwork: Similarity, statistics, and selling price. Proceedings of SPIE 7527, 75271A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, D.J., Friedenberg, J.D. & Rockmore, D.N. (2009). Efficient visual system processing of spatial and luminance statistics in representational and non-representational art. Proceedings of SPIE 7240, 72401N.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, D.J., Friedenberg, J.D., Rockmore, D.N. & Field, D.J. (2010 b). Mapping the similarity space of paintings: Image statistics and visual perception. Visual Cognition 18, 559–573.Google Scholar
Graham, D.J. & Meng, M. (2011). Altered spatial frequency content in paintings by artists with schizophrenia. i-Perception 2, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, D.J. & Redies, C. (2010). Statistical regularities in art: Relations with visual coding and perception. Vision Research 50, 1503–1509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasson, U., Malach, R. & Heeger, D. (2009). Reliability of cortical activity during natural stimulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hasson, U., Nir, Y., Levy, I., Fuhrmann, G. & Malach, R. (2004). Intersubject synchronization of cortical activity during natural vision. Science 303, 1634–1640.Google Scholar
Haxby, J.V., Hoffman, E.A. & Gobbini, M.I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honey, C., Kirchner, H. & VanRullen, R. (2008). Faces in the cloud: Fourier power spectrum biases ultrarapid face detection. Journal of Vision 8, 1–13.Google Scholar
Hughes, J.M., Graham, D.J., Jacobsen, C.R. & Rockmore, D.N. (2011). Higher-order spatial statistics and perceptual judgments in the stylometric analysis of art. In Proceedings of EUSIPCO 2011 (19th European Signal Processing Conference), Barcelona, Spain, 29 Aug 2011.Google Scholar
Koch, M., Denzler, J. & Redies, C. (2010). 1/f2 Characteristics and Isotropy in the Fourier Power Spectra of Visual Art, Cartoons, Comics, Mangas, and Different Categories of Photographs. PLoS ONE 5(8): e12268. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F.-F., Iyer, A., Koch, C. & Perona, P. (2007). What do we perceive in a glance of a real-world scene? Journal of Vision 7, 1–29.Google Scholar
Liu, C.H., Collin, C.A., Burton, A.M. & Chaudhuri, A. (1999). Lighting direction affects recognition of untextured faces in photographic positive and negative. Vision Research 39, 4003–4009.Google Scholar
McCann, J. (2005). Rendering high-dynamic range images: Algorithms that mimic human vision. Proceedings of the AMOS Technical Conference 2005, 19–28.Google Scholar
Meng, M. & Potter, M.C. (2008). Detecting and remembering pictures with and without visual noise. Journal of Vision 8:7, 1–10.Google Scholar
Oliva, A. (2005). Gist of the scene. In Encyclopedia of Neurobiology of Attention, ed. Itti, L., Rees, G. & Tsotsos, J.K., pp. 251–256. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Olmos, A. & Kingdom, F.A.A. (2004). McGill Calibrated Colour Image Database. Available from http://tabby.vision.mcgill.ca.Google Scholar
Olshausen, B.A. & Field, D.J. (2004). Sparse coding of sensory inputs. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 14, 481–487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olshausen, B.A. & Field, D.J. (2005). How close are we to understanding V1? Neural Computation 17, 1665–1699.Google Scholar
Patel, A.D. (2008). Music, Language, and the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinto, N., Cox, D.D. & DiCarlo, J.J. (2008). Why is real-world visual object recognition hard? PLoS Computational Biology 41, e27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinto, P.D., Linhares, J.M.M., Carvalhal, J.A. & Nascimento, S.M.C. (2006). Psychophysical estimation of the best illumination for appreciation of Renaissance paintings. Visual Neuroscience 23, 669–674.Google Scholar
Potter, M.C. & Levy, E.I. (1969). Recognition memory for a rapid sequence of pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology 81, 10–15.Google Scholar
Redies, C., Hänisch, J., Blickhan, M. & Denzler, J. (2007 a). Artists portray faces with the Fourier statistics of complex natural scenes. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 18, 235–248.Google Scholar
Redies, C., Hasenstein, J. & Denzler, J. (2007 b). Fractal-like image statistics in visual art: Similarity to natural scenes. Spatial Vision 21, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rust, N.C. & Movshon, J.A. (2005). In praise of artifice. Nature Neuroscience 8, 1647–1650.Google Scholar
Thorpe, S.J., Fize, D. & Marlot, C. (1996). Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381, 520–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torralba, A. & Oliva, A. (2003). Statistics of natural image categories. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 14, 391–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanRullen, R. & Thorpe, S.J. (2001). Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Ultra-rapid visual categorisation of natural and artifactual objects. Perception 30, 655–668.Google Scholar
Velisavljevic, L. & Elder, J.H. (2009). Cue dynamics underlying rapid detection of animals in natural scenes, Journal of Vision 9, 1–20.Google Scholar
Wallraven, C., Kaulard, K., Kürner, C., Pepperell, R. & Bülthoff, H.H. (2007). Psychophysics for perception of indeterminate art. In Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization APGV‘07, 115-122. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Reber, R. & Fandeiro, T.A. (2003). Cognitive and affective consequences of visual fluency: When seeing is easy on the mind. In Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, ed. Scott, L.M. & Batra, R., p. 152. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Yamane, Y., Carlson, E.T., Bowman, K.C., Wang, Z. & Connor, C.E. (2008). A neural code for three-dimensional object shape in macaque inferotemporal cortex. Nature Neuroscience 11, 1352–1360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed