0 visualizações

Enviado por davidrojasv

Computational Gestalts and Prägnanz

- Gestalt Psychology and Its Contribution to Society - Copy
- Revista ew on Brain Tumour Detection using Image Processing
- Looking at looking
- Gestalt Theory
- Research
- iros10-GraspingWithDepthSegmentation
- Neuron Tracking and Segmentation in Brain MRI Images using Genetic Algorithm
- a
- Face
- facilitating learning
- Customer Perception Tvs Adarsha
- Segmentation of Satellite Images for Damage Assessment::Natural Calamity Images Perspective
- A method for recognizing particles in overlapped particle.pdf
- Theories of Perception Part 1
- Fruit Grading With Colour
- A new stanadarized stimulus set for studying need of help recognition
- print report for hannah r grossman
- Basics - Urban Analysis-libre
- view.pdf
- iaIntro

Você está na página 1de 13

Riccardo Luccio

Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Trieste

Our phenomenal experience is founded on the objects and events that the

perceptual field presents to us, in today life as in laboratory. Excepted some

very rare situation, like the Ganzfeld, the phenomenal field is seldom

homogeneous, and evry time that the perceptual processes present to us

properties that are “different from what one ca expect by bare summation”, we

are confronted with what we can call Gestalts (cfr Köhler, 1920, p. ix).

Usually, when in psychology we speak about perception, we refer at

least to two different concepts. i) a first meaning refers to an immediate

segmentation of the field, which appears so to the awareness as a plurality of

distinct objects, before and indipendently from the attribution of any meaning;

ii) a second meaning, on the contrary, refers to the identification of suche

objects, with their categorization and their recognition,

One can note that is the first concept, specifically visual, that Kanizsa

called primary, while the second, properly cognitive, was by him called

secondary (Kanizsa, 1979), in his distinction between the “two ways to go

beyond the information given”.

Kanizsa spoke always about this two moments in terms of seeing versus

thinking. Personally, while agreeing with this distinction, I do prefer definitely

to avoid the identification of the two moments with the terms seeing and

thinking, that have created so many misunderstandings and fruitless debates. In

particular it is worth to remember the arguments advanced by the supporters of

the opportunity to maintain a continuity between perception and thinking, as in

the classic Gestalttheorie (see Arnheim, 1986 – see Kanizsa & Luccio, 1987;

Luccio, 2005). Anyway, the opportunity to save the distinction is given by

logic as well as experimental reasons. When the aim of the student of

2

process operates, first one must leave any temptation to advocate any

ratiomorphic explanation of the segmentation of the field. From the logic point

of view, the so-called “Höffding’s step” (Höffding, 1885; Kanizsa & Luccio,

1987) has definitely demonstrated the untenability of any argment that

maintain the recognition of an object not yet recognized on the basis of the past

experience. This is true not only for the classical ratiomorphic assumption like

Helmholtz’ unbewußter Schluss, or Benussi’s assimilation, but also for models

derived from the “classic approach” of the computer vision (see below).

In my opinion, the lone tendency that one can individuate in perception

is towards a maximum stability in the given conditions, according to minimum

principles (Koffka, 1935), and not towards a maximum regularity, like many

Gestalt theorists have maintained (f. i. Metzger, 1976; Wertheimer, 1923 –

contra, see Kanizsa & Luccio, 1986). In this sense, it is the interesting to

examinate (and these are the experimental reasons above advocated) mainly the

cases in which there are i) multistable configurations (Kanizsa & Luccio,

1995), ii) sharp and compelling organizational changes, like in Street’s figures;

iii) perceptual results that are stable, but amodal, that is independent from an

actual stimulation (Kanizsa & Gerbino, 1982).; or (iv) the phenomenal results

are more or less different from the objective conditions of stimulation, that is in

the case of the so called illusions.

However, the first tasks to individuate the mecha nisms that could be at

the base of the primary process, that is the segmentation of the visual field.

Partial gestalts

In the last few decades many attempts were made to formulate Gestalt

principles in a more precise way, using mathematical tools that at the time of

the founding of the Berlin school were not at disposal of the first Gestalt

psychologists, from information theory (Attneave, 1854, 1957; Garner, 1962)

to synergetics (Haken & Stadler, 1990; Kelso, 1995), or other dynamic non-

linear approaches (van Leeuwen, 2007), and so on. One apparently very

3

promising attempt was undertaken, in the last ten years or so, by a group of

French mathematicians mainly interested in computer vision; among them

(Morel, Cao, Almansa, etc:), the leading figure appears today Agnés

Desolneux. (for a comprehensive review, see Desolneux, Moisan, Morel,

2006). The theory of computational Gestalts that they are building is centered

on three basic principles:

1. Shannon-Nyquist, definition of signals and images. Any image or

signal, including noisy signals, is a band-limited function sampled on

a bounded, periodic grid.

2. Wertheimer's contrast invariance principle: Image interpretation does

not depend upon actual values of the stimulus intensities, but only on

their relative values.

3. Helmholtz principle, indeed stated by D. Lowe (1985): Gestalts are

sets of points whose (geometric regular) spatial arrangement could

not occur in noise.

This means that, given the discreteness of the visual field (first

principle), and given the prevalence of the relative over the absolute values of

the stimuli (second principle), it is possible to determine a probability value ,

for whom all the stimuli whose probability is less of tend to group together

(third principle).

The name of Helmholtz can sound a little odd in this context for

psychologists. As a matter of fact, in his Handbuch (1867), neither in other

paper concerning perceptual theory, Helmholtz never stated something of

similar. But in general the quotations of such authors of psychological matters

are not to be taken too seriously. We will concentrate in our analysis overall on

Helmholtz principle.

Anyway, before examining the theory, is useful some introductory

remarks. In this approach, the starting point is the attempt made by Gestaltists

(overall Wertheimer) to find the basic laws that contribute to the formation of

shapes, on the basis of several common properties. These properties, the partial

gestalts (Desolneux, Moisan and Morel, 2001) correspond at least in part to the

4

forming larger groups, according also to some other less classic principles, like

the articulation without rests (Metzger, 1956, Kanizsa, 1979). It could be

stressed that Metzger and Kanizsa are considered by these authors very

important points of reference in this matter, in some sense more than the

classical authors of the Berlin school.

According to these authors, Gestalt Theory predicts that the partial

gestalts are recursively organized with respect to the grouping laws. The

algorithms are non-local, since alignments or similarity between some partial

features have to be considered for the totality of the perceptual field.

A good example could be the detection of good continuation (Cao,

2004). The steps to go on in the study are the following. First, it is not given a

global explanation of the form to detect, neither a model of it. One must instead

decide whether (in case of good continuation) a given curve made assembling

two or more other curves produces a result that is smooth or not. So, given a

curve and a number of other curves with different levels of smoothness, the

participant has the task to make which considers is a meaningful assembling,

indicating which curves can belong each other. We can so work out the false

alarm rate; in such a detection task the parameters reduce to this rate, that,

under null hypothesis, is a fair measure of probability. The algorithm is in

consequence parameter free. We must stress that the verb “decide” could be

misleading, if one assumes that it implies some sort of ratiomorphic

explanationm with a reasoning abour the smoothness as a perceptual result.

Instead, the process has in some sense an automatic exit. In other terms, it

could be conidered as the output of a sort of “smart mechanism”, in the sense

of Runeson (1977): in this case, as we will see soon, the primary process is the

output off a smart mechanism that is able to assess probabilities e to segment

the perceptual field according to the result of this assessment, without any need

to know nothing about the theory of probability.

5

We must stress the great difference that this approach has with respect to

all the traditional approaches in computer image analysis, not to say in

experimental psychology. In most approaches the students define a priori a set

of structures that one should find in the given images to analyse. Such structures

could be lines with a given curvatures, junctions (f.i. T-junctions), textures,

convexities, and so on. The next step is, given a certain image or shape or in

general pattern, to try to maximize the values of some parameters associated

with such structures in computing (in computer vision) or in detecting (in

experimental psychology) the pattern. This is made, formally in computer vision,

informally (implicitly) in experimental psychology, minimizing a function of the

type F(u, u0) + R (u), were u is the model of the image, u0 the given image, and

F and R are respectively fidelity and regularity functions (see Morel and

Solimini, 1994).

This classical approach presents a series of drawbacks: without going in

deep, we must list the main drawbacks: the need for normalization constants,

that determine the segmentation of the image; the fact that, assigning a

minimum for the above function, it is implied that any image (random noise too)

could be segmented, irrespectively of the fact that this segmentation is significant

or not. And least but not last, this approach is for its very nature localist, and so

anti Gestaltist in spirit.

To illustrate this problem, we shall illustrate briefly a recent model of this

kind, highly discussed in the last years, proposed by Brox, Bruhn, Papenberg, &

Weickert, (2004 – for a discussion and an extension of the model, see Amiaz,

Lubetzky, & Kiryati, 2007). The aim of Brox & coll. was the estimate of the

optical flux, minimizing an objective function E(u, v), including two terms, a

data term and a smoothness term. The data term, Ed (u, v), gives the

correspondance of two frames, on the basis of the constancy of the gray level in

consecutive frames. To avoid the effect of the noise, one canm for instance,

utilize some weighted windows around each pixel. It implies clearly the

insufficience of an approach based only on minimizing Ed. We need some

6

“regularization”, for instance the so-called piecewise smoothness (see Black &

Anandan, 1996, Brox et al., 2004, Amiaz & Kiryati, 2006).

Helmholtz principle

Let’s go back to the model here discussed. As we said, the so called

Helmholtz principle was introduced by Lowe (1985). In very general terms, we

can state the principle in this way: we are able to detect any configuration that

has a very low probability to occur only by chance. So, any detected

configuration has a low probability, that implies that every improbable

configuration is perceptually relevant. Lowe stated so the principle: “ we need

V° Ë

to determine the probability that each relation in the image could have arisen

by accident p(A). Naturally, the smaller that this value is, the more likely the

relation is to have a causal interpretation.” A more formal statement of this

principle was first given by Desolneux, Moisan and Morel (2000): “We say

that an event of type ‘such configuration of points has such property’ is -

meaningful if the expectation in a image of the number of occurrences of this

event is less than ”.

What means the -meaningfulness? It can be restated assuming that in an

image are present n objects (parts, regions). Now, if k of them share a common

feature, we must decide if this is happening by chance or not. To answer this

question, we make the following mental experiment: we assume that the

considered quality has been randomly and uniformly distributed on all objects

O1, . . . , On. Notice that this quality may be spatial (e.g., position, orientation).

Then we (mentally) assume that the observed position of objects in the image

is a random realization of this uniform process, and ask the question: is the

observed repartition probable or not? The Helmholtz principle states that if the

expectation in the image of the observed configuration O1, . . .,Ok is very small,

then the grouping of these objects makes sense, is a Gestalt (see Desolneux,

Moisan and Morel, 2003). The Helmholtz principle can be illustrated by the

psychophysical experiment of Figure 1. On the left, we display roughly 400

segments whose directional accuracy (computed as the width–length ratio) is

7

about 12 degrees. Assuming that the directions and the positions of the

segments are independent, uniformly distributed, we can compute the

expectation of the number of alignments of four segments or more. (We say

that segments are aligned if they belong to the same line, up to the given

accuracy.) The expectation of such alignments in this case is about 2.5. Thus,

we can expect two or three such alignments of four segments and we found

them by computer. Do you see them? On the right, we performed the same

experiment with about 30 segments, with accuracy (width–length ratio) equal

to 7 degrees. The expectation of a group of four aligned segments is 1/250.

Most observers detect them immediately.

is true, we perceive events if and only if they are meaningful in the preceding

sense. The alignment on the right side of Figure 1 is meaningful while the left

side of the figure contains no meaningful alignment of four segments.

As an example of generic computation we can do with this definition, let

us assume that the probability that a given object Oi has the considered quality

is equal to p. Then, under the independence assumption, the probability that at

least k objects out of the observed n have this quality is

8

n ! n$

B( p,n,k) = ' # &p i (1 ( p) ,

n(i

i=k " k %

i.e. the tail of the binomial distribution. The independence assumption is not

realistic, but it is an a contrario assumption. In order to get an upper bound of

the number of false alarms, i.e. the expectation of the geometric event

happening by pure chance, we can simply multiply the above probability by the

number of tests we perform on the image. Let us call NT the number of tests.

Then in most cases we shall consider in the next subsections, a considered

event will be defined as -meaningful if

N T B( p,n,k ) ! ".

We call in the following the left hand member of this inequality on the the

“number of false alarms” (NFA).

If this expected number, is very low, then the group should be

considered as meaningful, since it cannot be due only to chance. This means

that we reject, a contrario, the independence hypothesis. Under an

independence assumption, probabilities are obtained as products of more

elementary probabilities. Therefore, it is often possible to prove (it will be the

case in what follows), that the minimal size of the meaningful group, depends

on the logarithm of the allowed number of false alarms. We shall see that,

experimentally, we can take this number equal to 1, since modifying its value

does not much change the results. We have to pay attention to the fact that the

a contrario events we define must not depend in any way of the observation.

When 1, we talk about meaningful events. This seems to contradict

the necessary notion of a parameter-less theory. Now, it does not, since the -

dependency of meaningfulness will be low (it will be in fact a log -

dependency). The probability that a meaningful event is observed by accident

will be very small. In such a case, our perception is liable to see the event, no

matter whether it is “true” or not. Our term !-meaningful is related to the

classical p-significance in statistics ; as we shall see further on, we must use

expectations in our estimates and not probabilities.

9

systematization of Stewart’s ”MINPRAN” method [23]. The method was

presented as a new paradigm, but was applied only to the 3D alignment

problem. Now, Stewart actually addressed but did not solve two problems we

have intended to overcome, in order to make the method fully general. One of

the problems raised by Stewart was the generation of the set of samples, which

generates in Stewart’s method at least three user’s parameters and the second

one was the severe restriction about the independence of samples. We actually

solved both difficulties simultaneously by introducing the number of samples

as an implicit parameter of the method (computed from the image size and

Shannon’s principles) and by replacing in all calculations the ”probability of

hallucinating a wrong event” by the ”expectation of the number of such

hallucinations”, namely what we call the false alarm rate NFA. The method we

develop here has probably been proposed several times in Computer Vision

(e.g. in the early Lowe work [15]), but, to the best of our knowledge, not

systematically developped.

An important point is raised by Cao (2004). If we assume that the points

are uniformly and independently distributed in the image, then this configuration

is neither more nor less probable than any other configuration. This means that

summarizing Helmholtz principle by “any improbable configuration has to be

detected” is erroneous. The answer of this objection is given by the Gestalt

Theory itself: the non generic configurations we are interested in, are given by

the Gestalt laws. Thus, we have to compute the probability of occurrence of

partial gestalts: alignments, good continuations, etc . . ., and not the probability

of any random configuration. The argument could appear a circular one, but in

fact this is a nice operative way to define operationally what Gestalt principles

are.

What does “small probability” mean? In fact, we can only compare the

number of false alarms (that is the number of detections that are due to chance)

and the number of tested events (which depends on the observation). Therefore,

this number has to be finite. Together with the fact that all the tested events

10

observations have to be quantized, as explained in the next section. According

to the preliminary experimental results that we have obtained in this

perspective, we can so give a definite formulation of the concept of Prägnanz,

eliminating all the ambiguities that surround it (Kanizsa and Luccio, 1986), and

include in a very precise way oppositenes as a founding principle in

constituting perceptual Gestalts:

References

Almansa, A., Desolneux, A., Vamech, S. (2003). Vanishing point detection

without any a priori information. IEEE Transactions: Pattern Analysis

and Machine Intelligence, 25 (4), 502–507

Alvarez, L., Morales, F. (1997). Affine morphological multiscale analysis of

corners and multiple junctions. International Journal of Computer

Vision, 25 (2), 95–107.

Amiaz, T. & Kiryati, N. (2006). Piecewise-smooth dense optical flow via level

sets, International Journal of Computer Vision, 68, 111–124.

Amiaz, T., Lubetzky, E., & Kiryati, N. (2007). Coarse to over-fine optical

flowestimation. Pattern Recognition, 40, 2496 – 2503-

Arnheim, R. (1987). Prägnanz and its discontents. Gestalt Theory, 9,102-107.

Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception.

Psychological Review, 61, 183–193.

Attneave, F. (1959). Applications of Information Theory to Psychology, New

York, NY: Holt.

Black, M.J. & Anandan, P. (1996). The robust estimation of multiple motions:

parametric and piecewise-smooth flow fields. Computer Vision Image

Understanding, 63, 75–104.

Brox, T., Bruhn, A., Papenberg, N., & Weickert, J. (2004). High accuracy

optical flow estimation based on a theory for warping, in: Eighth

European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV04), vol. IV, 25-36.

11

Transactions: Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 8 (6), 679–698

Cao, F. (2002). Contrast invariant, parameterless detection of good

continuations, corners and terminators. Technical Report PI-1487,

IRISA,

Caselles, V., Coll, B., Morel, J.M.: (1996). A Kanizsa program. In Progress in

Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, Vol. 25, 35–55

Deriche, R., Giraudon, G. (1993). A computational approach for corner and

vertex detection. Int. J. of Computer Vision, 10, 101–124

Desolneux, A., Moisan, L., Morel, J.M. (2000). Maximal meaningful events

and application to image analysis. Technical Report Preprint 2000-22,

CMLA, ENS-Cachan.

Desolneux, A., Moisan, L., Morel, J.M. (2000). Meaningful alignments. Int. J.

of Computer Vision, 7–23.

Desolneux, A., Moisan, L., Morel, J.M. (2001). Edge detection by Helmholtz

principle. J. Math. Imag. Vision, 14, 271–284.

Desolneux, A., Moisan, L., Morel, J. M. (2001). Partial gestalts.

http://www.cmla.ens-cachan.fr. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis

and Machine Intelligence.

Desolneux, A., Moisan, L., Morel, J. M. (2003).A grouping principle and four

applications. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine

Intelligence, 25, 508–513.

Desolneux, A., Moisan, L., Morel, J.M (2006). From Gestalt Theory to Image

Analysis: A Probabilistic Approach. (Technical Report)

Garner, W. R. (1962). Uncertainty and Structure as Psychological Concepts,

New York, NY: Wiley.

Gousseau, Y., Morel, J.M.: Are natural images of bounded variation? J. of

Math. Anal. 33(3), 634–648 (2001)

Haken, H. and Stadler, M. (eds) (1990). Synergetics of Cognition, Berlin:

Springer, 2-30.

12

4th Alvey Vision Conference, Manchester, pp. 189–192

Helmholtz, H., von (1867). Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik, Leipzig:

Voss.

Höffding H., (1885). Psychologie in Umrissen auf Grundlage der Erfahrung.

Leipzig: Fus's Verlag.

Jacobs, D.W.: Robust and efficient detection of salient convex groups. IEEE

Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 18, 23–37 (1996)

Julesz, B. (1983): Textons, the fundamental elements in preattentive vision and

perception of textures. Bell-Systems Technological Journal, 62, 1619–

1645

Kanizsa, G. (1979). Organization of Vision, New York, NY: Praeger.

Kanizsa, G. (1991). Vedere e Pensare. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Kanizsa, G. and Gerbino, W. (1982). Amodal completion: Seeing or Thinking?

in:, J. Beck (ed) Organization and Representation in Perception.

Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, pp. 167-190.

Kanizsa, G. and Luccio R. (1986) Die Doppeldeutigkeiten der Prägnanz.

Gestalt Theory, 8, 99-135.

Kanizsa, G. & Luccio R. (1987). Formation and categorization of visual

objects: Höffding's never confuted bus always forgotten argument, Gestalt

Theory, 9, 111-127.

Kanizsa, G. & Luccio, R. (1995). Multistability as a research tool in

perception. in: P. Kruse & M. Stadler (eds), Ambiguity in Mind and

Nature. Berlin: Springer.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic Patterns. The Self-Organization of Brain and

Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Köhler, W. (1920). Die physischen Gestalten in Ruhe und im stationären

Zustand. Braunschweig: Vieweg.

Lindeberg, T., Li, M.X. (1997). Segmentation and classification of edges using

minimum description length approximation and complementary junction

cues. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 67, 88–98

13

Lisani, J.L., Monasse, P., Rudin, L. (2001). Fast shape extraction and

application. Preprint 16, CMLA, ENS-Cachan. Lowe, D.

(1985).Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition. London:

Klüwer,.

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco: CA, Freeman.

Montanari, U. (1971). On the optimal detection of curves in noisy pictures.

Communications of the ACM, 14, 335–345

Mumford, D., Shah, J. (1989). Optimal approximation by piecewise smooth

functions and associated variational problems. Communication on Pure

and Applied Mathematics, XLII (4)

Nitzberg, M., Shiota, T. (1992). Nonlinear image filtering with edge and corner

enhancement. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 14, 826–833

Pao, H., Geiger, D. (1999) Rubin, N.: Measuring convexity for figure/ground

separation. In: International Conference of Computer Vision, ICCV 9

Vol. 2, 948–955

Prytulak L. S. (1974). Good continuation revisited. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 102, 773-777.

Rausch E. (1952). Struktur und Metrik figural-optischer Wahrnehmung.

Frankfurt: Kramer. .

Runeson, S. (1977). On th possibility of “smart” perceptual mechanisms.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 172-179.

Sojka, E. (2001). A new algorithm for detecting corners in digital images. In:

8th Spring Conference on Computer Graphics,

van Leeuwen, C. (2007). What needs to emerge to make you conscious?.

Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 115--136.

Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre der Gestalt, II.

Psychologische Forschung. 4, 301–350.

Zhu, S.C.: Embedding Gestalt laws in markow random fields. IEEE

Transactions: Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21(11), 1170–1187

(1999)

- Gestalt Psychology and Its Contribution to Society - CopyEnviado porKevin Rey Caballeda
- Revista ew on Brain Tumour Detection using Image ProcessingEnviado porRahul Sharma
- Looking at lookingEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Gestalt TheoryEnviado porMark Durrand
- ResearchEnviado porArun Kumar
- iros10-GraspingWithDepthSegmentationEnviado porAbbé Busoni
- Neuron Tracking and Segmentation in Brain MRI Images using Genetic AlgorithmEnviado porIRJET Journal
- aEnviado porShailly Luthra
- FaceEnviado porRahul Rai
- facilitating learningEnviado porMarjorie Lacsamana Llanes
- Customer Perception Tvs AdarshaEnviado porbhagathnagar
- Segmentation of Satellite Images for Damage Assessment::Natural Calamity Images PerspectiveEnviado porIOSRjournal
- A method for recognizing particles in overlapped particle.pdfEnviado porDouglasSansao
- Theories of Perception Part 1Enviado porOldriana Prawiro Hapsari
- Fruit Grading With ColourEnviado porBadharudheen V.K
- A new stanadarized stimulus set for studying need of help recognitionEnviado porAlba Lucía Olarte
- print report for hannah r grossmanEnviado porapi-317438996
- Basics - Urban Analysis-libreEnviado porss44kkuurraa8888
- view.pdfEnviado porPablo Sanz
- iaIntroEnviado porRobson Melchiades
- 25090827 Drug StudyEnviado pordddddddddeeeeeeeffff
- IJETTCS-2013-07-26-053Enviado porAnonymous vQrJlEN
- InglesEnviado porElvis Rc
- News Letter20Enviado porR K Battaram
- Blue Eye TechnologyEnviado porChockalingam
- UntitledEnviado poranon-579447
- Presentation 1Enviado porjayasree
- Horizons of Identity Preface 04-01-10Enviado porAndrew Glynn
- Reiki Guides and AngelsEnviado porCrina Mihaela
- charters and pettigrewEnviado porsneha_iyer9846

- The Inca CodeEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Inner LightEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Como Estudiar en La UNEDEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Taller Color JVAlonsoFelipeEnviado porArmonìa
- Color VisionEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Greek GeometryEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Descartes, OpticsEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Democritus fragments.pdfEnviado porShannon Holt
- NATURAL GEOMETRY IN DESCARTES AND KEPLEREnviado pordavidrojasv
- LA INVESTIGACIÓN SOBRE LOS OBJETOS VISUALES DESDE UN PUNTO DE VISTAEnviado porcazembes
- DO_UC_EG_MT_A0313_2017Enviado porJkportaPortaAstuñaupa
- Lectura 4.pdfEnviado porAbraham Tellez Flores
- 1994CRAm.pdfEnviado porTraenental
- Transformation of NCS data into CIELUV colour spaceEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Enjoy your failuresEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Subjective Similarity in Two Perceptual Continua.Enviado pordavidrojasv
- SLOW-MOTION TUNNEL EFFECTEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Franz Brentano on the Ontology of MindEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Chomsky's Language and MindEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Attractors and perceptual field dynamicsEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Laws of ScienceEnviado pordavidrojasv
- PROBLEMS OF MEANING IN PERCEPTIONEnviado pordavidrojasv
- FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF VISIONEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Galileo the ScientistEnviado pordavidrojasv
- The Language of ColourEnviado pordavidrojasv
- The Lemon IllusionEnviado pordavidrojasv
- On the Visual Perception of ShapeEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Artists and Vision ScientistsEnviado pordavidrojasv
- Image CompositionEnviado pordavidrojasv

- The Study of PerceptionEnviado porJet Ignacio
- paperEnviado porVeena T. Nandi
- How direct is visual perception.pdfEnviado porTahi Guzmán
- ThesesEnviado porAnonymous DGq0O15nNz
- 10.1.1.922.3103-PSYCHOPHYSICS OF HUMAN VISION AND CAMOUFLAGE PATTERN DESIGN.pdfEnviado porrenatotorresa2803
- 00262354Enviado porMekaTron
- pnvd1Enviado porsalmapratyush
- On Vilém Flusser’s Towards a Philosophy of PhotographyEnviado poromydog
- Basic Robotics by BalamuruganEnviado porBalamurugan Thirunavukarasu
- System for the Notation of Proxemic BehaviorEnviado porBrÿan-Mitchell Ÿoung
- Brain Facts: Sensory and Precept IonEnviado porquesti0neverythin9
- Meditation Practices and Developing ClarityEnviado porefipaz
- Sensory AssignmentEnviado porColbert Ncube
- REVISADO the Deadly Perception of the Witness Focalization in Markus Zusak's the Book ThiefEnviado porDebora Oliveira
- Heywood:Sandywell IntroductionEnviado porRamón Salas
- Competency-based Jd GuideEnviado porcruscaden
- lesson plan 1Enviado porapi-248521749
- Virve Sarapik - Semiotics at the crossroads of art .pdfEnviado porDumaGabriel
- Yearly Lesson Plan Science Form 2Enviado porNicobella1009
- Sample Research Internship Cover LetterEnviado porHarshal Paunikar
- El Concepto de Límite en El B-MU de Francois RocheEnviado porELA TJ
- 10.1.1.96Enviado porJuan David Ardila
- ClairvoyanceEnviado porhindu2012
- James William the Principle of Psychology Vol IIEnviado porflurpe
- Astral DynamicsEnviado porSparky
- Driver Focus GuidelinesEnviado porj24maybe5963
- Snow Doubled VisionsEnviado porTheresa Plunkett-Hill
- Sinestesia en RilkeEnviado porAquí No Haynadie
- The Accident of ArtEnviado porElsa Oviedo
- Making Sense of Children's DrawingsEnviado porkhan.paki