Flowcentric Model of Narrow Slit Viewing in an Irregular Retina with Blind Spots,

Eye Motion, Blinks and no Smear: Base Model Changes, Test Details and Test
Results
David Pierre Leibovitz (dpleibovitz@ieee.org)
Institute of Cognitive Science, 2201 DT, Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6 Canada
Abstract
A computational model of
narrow slit viewing is tested
under conditions involving a
heterogeneous retina with blind
spots, while undergoing eye
motion and eye blink. The
model demonstrates spatial and
temporal forms of filling-in,
image stability and lack of
smear. At a neural level, the
model exemplifies flowcentric
behaviour.
The model is based on the
Emergic Cognitive Model
(ECM) (Leibovitz, 2013a).
Figure 1: Inuit snow
ECM is a unified cognitive
goggles (Idrobo, 2007)
model and this paper describe
the non-cognitive changes made
to support and highlight anorthoscopic behaviour. The model
is tested against a simplified stimulus as well as an ecological
one in order to demonstrate specific model abilities.
Additionally, this paper specifies the testing details and
provides the simulation results with minimal interpretation as
they are analyzed elsewhere, e.g., (Leibovitz & West, 2013a,
2013b).
Keywords: Anorthoscopic; Blink; Aperture Viewing;
Emergic Cognitive Model (ECM); Flowcentric; Foveal
Tritanopia; Segmentation; Slit Viewing; Unified Modeling.

Introduction
Anorthoscopic perception is good perception under abnormal
viewing conditions. One such scenario is when a wider view
of the world is perceived than can be sensed at any one time
when looking through a narrow slit. Thus, narrow slit viewing
and aperture viewing are common nicknames for this
phenomenon. Somehow, visual information must be
integrated across viewpoints. This paper demonstrates how
this can be accomplished via flowcentric means.
Leibovitz (2013b) had already analyzed the alternative
theories to anorthoscopic perception, as well as to how this
model could be based off a unified cognitive model
(Leibovitz, 2013a). Therefore, this paper only needs to detail
the non-cognitive changes actually made, describe the two
modelling tests, and provide initial simulation results under
minimal interpretation. Due to space considerations, this
must suffice to demonstrate flowcentric vs. neurocentric
approaches.

Computational Model
Anorthoscopic perception occurs under two forms. Either the
narrow slit is fixed while the image moves underneath, or the
image is fixed and the narrow slit is moved over the image.
The latter is exemplified by snow goggles as shown in Figure
1. In this situation, the narrow slit is moved under active
engagement with the environment, and is the superior
perceptual form (Craddock, Martinovic, & Lawson, 2011). It
is also the only form modelled in this paper.
ECM is a unified cognitive model using a fine-grained
functional decomposition. These cognitive functions are
massively distributed, recurrent, and interactive leading to
numerous non-linearities and emergent behaviour. For the
purposes of anorthoscopic behaviours, these cognitive
functions as well as all cognitive parameters remain
untouched. Instead, development parameters that can shape
individual differences have been added. These do not affect
the cognitive function, but can certainly affect emergent
behaviours. The changes are as follows.
Firstly, while ECM has a theory of segmenting an image
onto overlay, fixational and background layers, it has no
active mechanism. Instead, this is passively simulated by
rendering inactive all photoreceptors beyond the slit as shown
in Figure 3. In order to accomplish this programmatically, a
non-cognitive development parameter (slitw) was added to
control the width of the narrow slit and to indicate it on the
GUI via two vertical lilac coloured grid lines (e.g., Figure 4).
Secondly, the GUI showing the various RF levels was
modified to show the RFs in retinocentric coordinates in
addition to the existing flowcentric coordinates. This clarifies
the role of RFs as painting an image onto a moving flow.

Test 1 Ecological Stimulus

In this test we demonstrate the anorthoscopic behaviour of
our model under an ecological
stimulus.

Method
The Emergic Cognitive System
(ECS formerly ESS) was used
to embody ECM within a
virtual person and situate it
within a test environment
(Leibovitz, 2013a). It simulates
a virtual eyeball looking at a
view of a computer screen as

Object

Person

Figure 2: Emergic
Cognitive System (ECS)

Figure 3: Agents irregular retina (in False RGB) @ 0ms

shown in Figure 2. ECS can actually support two views (one

for each eye), but we demonstrate anorthoscopic sensation
with a cyclopean agent. The virtual eyeball can engage the
environment by saccading across the screen. Objects in the
stimuli can also move. This provides a non-representational
interaction between agent and environment supporting
continuous motion. The system is synchronous with every
tick lasting 10ms nominally, but when time and changes are
small enough, this approximates a physical system of

Figure 5: Test 1 stimulus viewed @ 0ms

Figure 4: Agents 1st level RF mosaic @0ms

continuous change and interaction (Rumelhart, McClelland,
& Group, 1986).
Agent analysis summary
A single cyclopean agent was stochastically generated based
on the development parameters listed in the appendix. Its
developed retina is shown Figure 3 and includes the
following irregularities: a narrow slit, photoreceptors of
varying sensitivities and sizes, a central scotoma (blind spot)
and a foveal blue scotoma (Curcio et al., 1991; Magnussen,
Spillmann, Strzel, & Werner, 2001; Williams, MacLeod, &
Hayhoe, 1981). The corresponding 1st level RF mosaic is
shown in Figure 4 which also indicates some of the
irregularities making especialy salient the innermost region
devoid of blue (S) cones.
Apparatus
ECS is configured with the agent viewing the computer
screen from a set distance as indicated in the supplementary
information. The visual results (views) are sufficient to
reproduce these tests as experiments on human subjects.
Stimuli
A natural image of Lena (Picard, 1995) was used (Figure 5).
Procedure
At time=0, the stimulus was presented to the single eye of the
virtual agent. The agent was instructed to move its eye in
the following pattern.
Move right for 8 ticks at a speed of 5/tick ( jitter)
Move left for 8 ticks at a speed of 5/tick ( jitter)
The artificial brain was monitored for an additional 6 ticks as
that is how long it takes for motor plans to take effect.

Table 1: Test 1 Results

Results
Animated results demonstrating anorthoscopic behaviour are
available at
http://dpleibovitz.upwize.com/?p=373
They are shown frame-by-frame within Table 1.
Table 1: Test 1 Results
Time
Stimulus View
(ms)

Photoreceptor
Mosaic

Time
Stimulus View
(ms)

90
1st Level RF
Mosaic

20

100

30

110

40

120

50

130

60

140

70

150

80

160

Photoreceptor
Mosaic

1st Level RF
Mosaic

Table 1: Test 1 Results

Time
Stimulus View
(ms)

Photoreceptor
Mosaic

1st Level RF
Mosaic

170

180

190
Figure 6: Test 2 stimulus viewed @ 0ms

200

Stimuli
A blue square over a red and green checkered background
was used (Figure 6) such that the foveal blue scotoma and the
central scotoma are both aligned over an edge to demonstrate
border and surface completion.

Results
210

Animated results are available at

http://dpleibovitz.upwize.com/?p=373
They are shown frame-by-frame within Table 2.
Table 2: Test 2 Results

220

Test 2 Simple Blue Stimulus with Edges

In this test we demonstrate the anorthoscopic behaviour of
our model under a simple blue stimulus with a straight edge.
It shows border completion of the edge through the scotomas,
as well as surface completion, especial for the foveal blue
scotoma. It also demonstrates the lack of smear that is
problematic in neurocentric models such as FACADE
(Francis, Grossberg, & Mingolla, 1994; Leibovitz, 2013a).

Method
The methodology is the same as for Test 1 except as
described below.

Time
Stimulus View
(ms)

20

30

Photoreceptor
Mosaic

1st Level RF
Mosaic

Table 2: Test 2 Results

Time
Stimulus View
(ms)

Photoreceptor
Mosaic

Table 2: Test 2 Results

1st Level RF
Mosaic

Time
Stimulus View
(ms)

40

120

50

130

60

140

70

150

80

160

90

170

100

180

110

190

Photoreceptor
Mosaic

1st Level RF
Mosaic

Table 2: Test 2 Results

Time
Stimulus View
(ms)

Photoreceptor
Mosaic

1st Level RF
Mosaic

200

210

220

General Discussion
It takes 60ms before planned eye movements take effect, so
during this time, spatial filling-in is demonstrated within the
scotomas, i.e., of border and surface completion. Subsequent
times demonstrate the temporal cut & paste form of filling in
from a previous frame (Van Roosmalen, Kokaram, &
Biemond, 1999) where the information appears to flow over
the scotomas and onto the wider anorthoscopic view. During
blinks, it is obvious that the flow acts as a dynamically
shifting memory buffer.
In both tests, the concept of flow is best understood by
comparing the 1st level RF mosaic at 140ms and 220ms. In
one case, the flow is on the left, in the other it is on the right
always much wider than the narrow slit allows.

Appendix
Agent Details
A single virtual agent was used for both tests, and it is fully
characterized by a set of development parameters indicated
next and defined in (Leibovitz, 2013a). The net effect of these
developmental parameters is a photoreceptor mosaic as
shown in Figure 3 and a 1st level RF mosaic as shown in
Figure 4. The important parameters are
1) L:M:S photoreceptor ratios are 6:4:1
(7:3:0 in foveola)
2) Outer photoreceptors twice as big as inner
3) Foveola diameter = 9.4 indicated in cyan
(no blue cones)
4) Fovea diameter = 136.52 indicated in cyan
5) Central scotoma also 9.4 - indicated in grey
6) Narrow slit width = 24.3 - indicated in pink
7) Eye blink is 10ms every 40ms.

[Person]
note =
srt = 10
sex = ai
age = 18
eyecount = 1
ipd = 0
vsize = 17.0
vieweyez = 75
r0conepix = 3
nodalpt = 17
r0coned = 4.0
r0red = 70
r0green = 30
r1coned = 2.0
r1red = 6000
r1green = 4000
r1blue = 1000
blindx = 0.0
blindy = -23.0
blindr = 11.6

slitw = 30.0
blink0d = 3
blink1d = 1
jitmin = 0.1
jitave = 0.7
jitmax = 0.9
p1_0_pixd = 2.5
p1_0_pix = 3094
p1_0_scale = 1
p1_0_fanlat = 7.0
p1_0_fandwn = 2.0
p1_1_pixd = 5.0
p1_1_pix = 864
p1_1_scale = 2
p1_1_fanlat = 2.0
p1_1_fandwn = 2.0
p1_2_pixd = 7.5
p1_2_pix = 401
p1_2_scale = 2
p1_2_fanlat = 2.2
p1_2_fandwn = 1.5

Note that for each test, the virtual agent was regenerated with
stochastic L, M or S sensitivity assignments within the
photoreceptor mosaic.

Stimuli Details
The stimuli for Test 1 and Test 2 are shown as viewed by the
virtual agent in Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively. The
stimuli are produced via a world controller with parameters
indicated next and defined in (Leibovitz, 2013a).
[World]
type = Image
note =
srt = 200
[Image]
wx = 256

wy = 256
wbg = #000000
iname = <filename>
ix = 256
iy = 256

References
Craddock, M., Martinovic, J., & Lawson, R. (2011). An
advantage for active versus passive aperture-viewing in
visual object recognition. Perception, 40(10), 115463.
Curcio, C. A., Allen, K. A., Sloan, K. R., Lerea, C. L., Hurley,
J. B., Klock, I. B., & Milam, A. H. (1991). Distribution and
morphology of human cone photoreceptors stained with
anti-blue opsin. Journal of comparative neurology, 312(4),
61024.
Francis, G., Grossberg, S., & Mingolla, E. (1994). Cortical
dynamics of feature binding and reset: control of visual
persistence. Vision research, 34(8), 1089104.
Idrobo, J. (2007). Inuit snow goggles. Wikimedia Commons.
Retrieved
from
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inuit_snow_gog
gles.jpg

Leibovitz, D. P. (2013a). A Unified Cognitive Model of Visual

Filling-In Based on an Emergic Network Architecture.
Carleton University.
Leibovitz, D. P. (2013b). Abnormal Science for Abnormal
Perception: A Case for Theoretical Cognitive Science via
a Case Study of Narrow Slit Viewing. Dr. David Pierre
Leibovitz.
Retrieved
from
http://dpleibovitz.upwize.com/?p=393
Leibovitz, D. P., & West, R. L. (2013a). Dendritic+
Processing in an Emergic Network Model of Narrow Slit
Viewing. Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Cognitive Modeling (ICCM 2013).
Leibovitz, D. P., & West, R. L. (2013b). Emergence of
Border & Surface Completion (both Spatial and Temporal)
in a Flowcentric Model of Narrow Slit Viewing.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Cognitive Modeling (ICCM 2013).
Magnussen, S., Spillmann, L., Strzel, F., & Werner, J. S.
(2001). Filling-in of the foveal blue scotoma. Vision
research, 41(23), 29617.

Picard, R. W. (1995). Light-years from Lena: video and

image libraries of the future. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Image Processing (Vol. 1, pp.
310313). IEEE Comput. Soc. Press.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & Group, P. R. (1986).
Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the
Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 1: Foundations (p. 567).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Roosmalen, P. M. B., Kokaram, A. C., & Biemond, J.
(1999). Fast high quality interpolation of missing data in
image sequences using a controlled pasting scheme. In
Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP99) (pp.
31053108 vol.6). IEEE.
Williams, D. R., MacLeod, D. I. A., & Hayhoe, M. M.
(1981). Foveal tritanopia. Vision Research, 21(9), 1341
1356.