Bettina L. Beard1, Talissa
A. Frank2 and Albert J. Ahumada1, Jr.
1NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000,
2Clemson Univ., Clemson, SC
A methodology is introduced to assist in the
construction of performance-based occupational vision standards. A simple image discrimination model is
first calibrated using stimuli representative of airframe and powerplant
cracks. It is then used to predict
simulated crack visibility for cracks of different lengths and widths. Visual
acuity declines are simulated using a Gaussian blur function on the crack
images. Crack width is shown to be
a salient cue for crack detection.
This modeling technique can generate the data necessary to construct
empirically-based occupational vision standards.
Future research will
validate model predictions with human psychophysical data.
Reviewing the occupational vision standards literature,
Beard et al. (2002) found that the
majority of standards are not empirically-based but rather appear to be
arbitrary. A few standards have
been empirically defined (Sheedy, 1980; Good & Augsberger, 1987; Padgett,
1989; Good, Weaver & Augsberger, 1996; Mertens & Milburn, 2000). Sheedy (1980), for example, measured the
size and working distance of the critical visual details for police officers
using a job-relevant task. Also
using job-relevant tasks, Good et al.
(1996) and Padgett (1989) used blurring lenses to simulate visual acuity
declines for basket weavers and firefighters, respectively. Finally, Mertens and Milburn (2000)
measured performance in color weak individuals on simulated ATC tasks to set an
empirically defined color vision standard for air traffic
controllers.
Currently no general standard exists in the aviation
industry for the visual qualifications of aircraft maintenance inspectors. Some maintenance facilities use the
visual acuity and color vision standards suggested in an FAA Advisory Circular
AC No: 65-31, while other facilities have defined their own vision
requirements. This illustrates the
need for a uniform and universally accepted set of vision standards that would
apply to all aircraft non-destructive inspection and testing (NDI/NDT)
personnel. It is difficult, if not impossible, to eliminate human error in the
process of inspection. Therefore
interventions must be developed to reduce these errors and make the process more
error-tolerant. Since visual
inspection represents 80% of all aviation maintenance inspection tasks (Goranson
& Rogers, 1983), one mitigation strategy is to define vision standards for
this vision-intensive, safety-critical occupation.
In this
paper we describe a model-based methodology for constructing an
empirically-based visual acuity standard for a representative task performed by
aircraft maintenance and inspection personnel. Computational models of human
vision can make an important contribution toward defining occupational vision
requirements. These models have
been applied to measurements of image quality by comparing an original image and
a reconstructed version of that image following image compression. The model predicts discriminability of
the two images and thus the visibility of the compression artifacts (Watson,
1983; Ahumada, 1996). These
discriminability models have also been successfully used to predict object
detection in a complex background; such as the detectability of camouflaged
military tanks in naturalistic scenes (Rohaly et al., 1997), simulated cancerous
tumors (Eckstein et al., 1997) and
simulated aircraft on a runway (Ahumada & Beard, 1997).
To obtain a visual acuity standard estimate using image discrimination models, we follow a multi-step process. First, the model is calibrated using laboratory stimuli that are representative of blurred and unblurred airframe and powerplant cracks. These representative stimuli were a subset of the standard Modelfest images (Watson, 2000), whose contrast thresholds have been measured in numerous laboratories and will be used to define normal observer model parameters. Second, the calibrated model was used to predict simulated crack visibility for cracks of different lengths and widths as a function of blur. Unlike earlier studies, reduced visual acuity is simulated within the image, rather than with blurring lenses, so that the image characteristics are exactly known. This step provides an estimate of contrast sensitivity reduction as a function of blur, so that if the tolerable loss in contrast sensitivity can be specified, the corresponding visual acuity is then specified. In future studies, human psychophysical measurements will validate the simulated crack predictions. In addition, the model will be used to compare the simulated crack predictions to predictions for actual crack images in a natural aircraft scene. And finally, we will validate the natural scene predictions with human-in-the-loop data. In this paper the results for the first two steps of this process are presented.
The purpose of this paper is threefold. (1) to introduce a new methodology for determining occupational vision requirements, (2) to present the technique used for model calibration, and (3) to determine model predictions for simulated crack images over a range of widths and lengths at different levels of visual acuity.
Representative Defects
Aircraft inspection is a complex process, requiring many
tasks, skills, and procedures. One
purpose of inspection is to detect surface discontinuities such as cracks within
the airframe and powerplant regions of the aircraft. Cracks are typically caused by two
surfaces being overlaid at a boundary (Hellier, 2001). Since these cracks may be very small and
of low contrast, adequate visual acuity is likely to be involved in their
detection. After consultation with
domain experts, crack detection was chosen as the representative task to model
in order to ultimately set a visual acuity standard. Visual acuity refers to a measure of
spatial resolution for a high contrast, static image.
Two
steps were taken before obtaining model predictions for crack detection as a
function of blur. The upper left
image shown in Figure 1 was the original defect image of an airframe. A crack runs horizontally across the
image. Using a drawing tool, the
crack was deleted from the image while maintaining the integrity of the
background image (shown on the upper right). Both images were then blurred as shown
in the lower two panels of Figure 1.

Figure 1. (Upper left)
Original image of a crack defect on an airframe surface. (Upper right) The crack has been removed
using a common drawing tool. (Lower
left) The original image has been blurred to simulate 20/200 visual acuity. (Lower right) The crack removed image has been blurred to
simulate 20/200 visual acuity.
A Simple
Model

Figure 2. Schematic of an
image discrimination model. The
upper image on the left is the blurred background image with the crack removed
and the lower image is the blurred background-plus-defect image. The two images (contrast images)
enter the visual system, where they are filtered by a difference-of-Gaussian
blurring function (Contrast Sensitivity Function, CSF). The difference of the filtered images is
the visible defect contrast image and the beta-norm of its contrast is the
Minkowski length. The background
image is assumed to be the masker and its standard deviation , c, reduces the
defect image contrast by means of a gain-control factor. The product of these factors represents
the predicted sensitivity or the number of just noticeable difference (JNDs) of
the crack defect.

Figure 3. Stimuli used to
calibrate the contrast discrimination model. The four leftmost images are Gaussian
blobs with decreasing standard deviations.
The fifth image is an edge and the sixth image is a line.
Image
discrimination models predict the visibility difference between two similar
images. The models take two images
as input, and output a prediction of the number of Just Noticeable Differences
(JNDs) or the smallest detectable difference between the two images. In this version of the model, one
luminance image is considered to be a blurred version of the background image
and the other is the blurred background-with-crack image. These images are filtered using the
Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) in order to normalize sensitivity to
different spatial frequencies. The
CSF is a graph depicting a persons ability to detect a stimulus as a function
of stimulus spatial frequency. The
model takes the contrast energy in the target and adjusts it by the background
standard deviation. For a more
detailed description of the model see Rohaly et al. (1997).
Model
Calibration
To
provide a common data set for the contrast detection model development, the
Modelfest project developed a set of 44 images, most of which are various
sinusoidal grating patches (the entire set of 44 calibration images can be
obtained from http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/modelfest). These images have been successfully used
to test and calibrate detection models.
To calibrate our model, six of the 44 images were chosen because of their
physical similarity to aircraft crack defects and their blurred versions. These six images are shown in Figure
3.
Earlier
predictions of real world stimuli (Rohaly et al., 1997; Ahumada & Beard, 1997)
have assumed a CSF with a sinusoidal grating threshold of 1%. To fit the average Modelfest thresholds
(n=16) for the stimuli in Figure 3 a best grating threshold of 0.7% was
found. The best fit Minkowski
summation exponent was 2.53 (slightly higher than the Euclidean distance
exponent of 2). These values are
less than that found for the entire set (Watson. 2000), probably because many
other images in the full set contain extended, high spatial frequency features,
whereas the six images used here either were localized within a small spatial
area or contained only extended low frequency energy. The RMS error for the model, adjusting
the peak contrast sensitivity and the summation exponent, but not the shape of
the CSF function was a very good 1.4 dB.
Simulating
Visual Acuity Decline
Although the shape of the human blur function differs
between individuals and changes for different optical conditions, it can be
approximated by a Gaussian spread function. The model has a difference-of-Gaussians
contrast sensitivity function with a center Gaussian spread of 2 min. To simulate different levels of visual
acuity, the image is blurred with a Gaussian and acuity is reported as the ratio
of the effective center spread to the original model value. Thus we are assuming that the model has
20/20 vision. For example, if the
blur has a spread of 2 min, the effective center Gaussian spread will be root 2
times 2 min (Pythagorean rule) so that the effective acuity will be 20/28.
Model
Predictions
The
visibility of a set of simulated cracks was predicted as a function of blur
(simulating visual acuity declines) for a range of lengths and widths. The widths were 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8
min. The lengths were the widths
times 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. Figure 4
shows how the threshold contrast for four of these images was elevated as a
function of blur relative to the threshold for the unblurred image. The top curve is the result for the
pinpoint crack (e.g., 0.5 min x 0.5 min).
The threshold for this image is more affected by blur than the threshold
for any other image. The figure
shows that if the allowed sensitivity degradation were 6 dB (a factor of 2 in
contrast), the allowable acuity degradation would be about 20/50.
Figure 4. Blur-generated
contrast threshold increments in decibels of contrast as a function of visual
acuity decline for four of the crack
length and widths described in the text. The top curve represents the smallest
crack (0.5 min by 0.5 min), the bottom curve is for the biggest crack (8 min by
128 min).
The
first aim of this paper was to describe a methodology that may be used to
generate empirically-based occupational vision standards. This methodology does not provide a
standard, but it converts the problem to specifying a desired physical
limitation in performance. The most
important feature of the method is that it allows a large number of critical
stimuli to be specified without requiring that a large number of stimuli
actually be tested using human observers.
In this case, the stimulus most sensitive to the manipulation being
considered (a small crack) and the manipulated versions themselves (Gaussian
blobs) happened to be in a set of well-studied stimuli. However, if it was decided that only
stimuli with particular characteristics (e.g., cracks of a certain length) were
important for setting the standard, the results might then need to be confirmed
by psychophysical human-in-the-loop experiments. The model has shown to do well on
uniform backgrounds, but needs testing in complex, blurred
backgrounds.
Here
this technique is used to help define the spatial vision requirements for
aircraft NDI/NDT personnel using simulated crack images. These modeling results will also help
define the range of parameters that need to be tested in the human
psychophysical experiments.
Vision
is a fundamental component of effective aircraft inspection. All the same, so too are other cognitive
factors such as attention, memory, and experience. Inspectors are knowledgeable about
individual components as well as the overall aircraft being inspected, thus they
possess the background to properly locate, identify, and evaluate aircraft
defects. Therefore, although vision
is a critical component in inspection, other factors weigh in heavily on the
naturalistic task.
Supported by FAA Agreement DTFA-2045 to B.L. Beard. Thanks go to Willa Hisle for her
artistic talent used to remove the crack from Figures 1 and
2.
Ahumada, Jr., A.J. (1996) Simplified vision models for
image quality assessment, in SID International Symposium Digest of Technical
Papers, ed J. Morreale, Vol. 27, pp. 397-400, SID, Santa Ana, CA.
Ahumada
Jr., A.J., Beard, B.L. (1997). Image discrimination models predict detection in
fixed but not random noise. Journal of
the Optical Society of America A 14, 2471-2476.
Beard,
B.L., Hisle, W.A., & Ahumada, A.J. (2002) Occupational vision standards: A
review. Report for FAA
AAR-100.
Eckstein, M.P., Ahumada, Jr., A.J., & Watson, A.B.
(1997) Image discrimination models predict signal detection in natural medical
image backgrounds, in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display VIII,
ed. B.E. Rogowitz and T.N. Pappas, Proc. Vol. 3016, pp. 44-56, SPIE, Bellingham,
WA.
Good,
G. W. & Augsburger, A. R. (1987). Uncorrected visual acuity standards for
police applicants. Journal of Police
Science and Administration, 15(1), 18-23.
Good,
G. W., Weaver, J. L., & Augsburger, A. R. (1996). Determination and
application of vision standards in industry. American Journal of Industrial Medicine,
30(5), 633-630.
Hellier, C. J. (2001) Handbook of Nondestructive Evaluation.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mertens, H. W. & Milburn, N. J. (1996). Performance
of color-dependent air traffic control tasks as a function of color vision
deficiency. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine, 76, 919-927.
Padgett, V. R. (1989). Summary of empirical validation
of firefighter vision requirements: four field experiments. Paper presented at
the International Personnel Management Association Assessment Council 13th
Annual Conference held in Orlando, FL.
Retrieved July 11, 2002, from http://home.earthlink.net/~medtox/firevis.html
Rohaly,
A.M., Ahumada, Jr., A.J., Watson, A.B. (1997) Object Detection in natural
backgrounds predicted by discrimination performance and models, Vision Research 37, 3225-3235.
Sheedy,
J. E. (1980). Police vision standards. Journal of Police Science and
Administration, 8(3), 275-285.
Watson,
A.B. (1983) Detection and recognition of simple spatial forms. In O. J. Braddick
and A.C. Sleigh, eds., Physical and
Biological Processing of Images, pp. 100-114, Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Watson,
A.B. (2000) Visual detection of spatial contrast patterns: Evaluation of five
simple models, Optics Express 6(1),
12-33. Link to
article.