Corrections

CORRECTIONS TO: Schütt, H. H., & Wichmann, F. A. (2017). An image-computable psychophysical spatial vision model. Journal of Vision, 17(12):12, 1–35, https://doi.org/10.1167/17.12.12. 

Unfortunately, our recent article “An image-computable psychophysical spatial vision model” contains an error in the database analysis we describe in the section Natural scene masking database. Due to a bug in our analysis code we divided by the average pixel value instead of the average luminance to calculate the contrast of the threshold signal. 

When this bug is corrected, the correlation between predicted and measured thresholds increases substantially from r = 0.5196 to r = 0.5966 for the mean normalization and from r = 0.5801 to r = 0.6486 for the local normalization as we show in our corrected figure. Thus, our model performs better when the analysis error is removed. With the correct analysis our model no longer overestimates performance; thus, our arguments about suboptimal decoding to explain the overestimation are void. 

 

The corrected Figure 13. All conventions as in the original article: We plot the measured thresholds against the predictions of our model setting the spatial extent of the normalization pool either to the whole image or to a single pixel. Patches darker than \(\def\upalpha{\unicode[Times]{x3B1}}\)\(\def\upbeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B2}}\)\(\def\upgamma{\unicode[Times]{x3B3}}\)\(\def\updelta{\unicode[Times]{x3B4}}\)\(\def\upvarepsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3B5}}\)\(\def\upzeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B6}}\)\(\def\upeta{\unicode[Times]{x3B7}}\)\(\def\uptheta{\unicode[Times]{x3B8}}\)\(\def\upiota{\unicode[Times]{x3B9}}\)\(\def\upkappa{\unicode[Times]{x3BA}}\)\(\def\uplambda{\unicode[Times]{x3BB}}\)\(\def\upmu{\unicode[Times]{x3BC}}\)\(\def\upnu{\unicode[Times]{x3BD}}\)\(\def\upxi{\unicode[Times]{x3BE}}\)\(\def\upomicron{\unicode[Times]{x3BF}}\)\(\def\uppi{\unicode[Times]{x3C0}}\)\(\def\uprho{\unicode[Times]{x3C1}}\)\(\def\upsigma{\unicode[Times]{x3C3}}\)\(\def\uptau{\unicode[Times]{x3C4}}\)\(\def\upupsilon{\unicode[Times]{x3C5}}\)\(\def\upphi{\unicode[Times]{x3C6}}\)\(\def\upchi{\unicode[Times]{x3C7}}\)\(\def\uppsy{\unicode[Times]{x3C8}}\)\(\def\upomega{\unicode[Times]{x3C9}}\)\(\def\bialpha{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\)\(\def\bibeta{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\)\(\def\bigamma{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}\)\(\def\bidelta{\boldsymbol{\delta}}\)\(\def\bivarepsilon{\boldsymbol{\varepsilon}}\)\(\def\bizeta{\boldsymbol{\zeta}}\)\(\def\bieta{\boldsymbol{\eta}}\)\(\def\bitheta{\boldsymbol{\theta}}\)\(\def\biiota{\boldsymbol{\iota}}\)\(\def\bikappa{\boldsymbol{\kappa}}\)\(\def\bilambda{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\)\(\def\bimu{\boldsymbol{\mu}}\)\(\def\binu{\boldsymbol{\nu}}\)\(\def\bixi{\boldsymbol{\xi}}\)\(\def\biomicron{\boldsymbol{\micron}}\)\(\def\bipi{\boldsymbol{\pi}}\)\(\def\birho{\boldsymbol{\rho}}\)\(\def\bisigma{\boldsymbol{\sigma}}\)\(\def\bitau{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\)\(\def\biupsilon{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}\)\(\def\biphi{\boldsymbol{\phi}}\)\(\def\bichi{\boldsymbol{\chi}}\)\(\def\bipsy{\boldsymbol{\psy}}\)\(\def\biomega{\boldsymbol{\omega}}\)\(4{cd \over m^2}\) are plotted in gray, and all others are in black. Additionally, we marked one low and one high threshold example patch each, where the measured threshold was higher, lower, or roughly equal to the prediction.

We apologize for this error and hope that none of our colleagues were misled by it. It is important to note that the bug did not affect the model itself, but only affected this one evaluation of our model. Thus, none of our conclusions in our article change. 

View Original Article