Show Me the Features! Understanding Recognition From the Use of Visual Information

We propose an approach that allows a rigorous understanding of the visual categorization and recognition process without asking direct questions about unobservable memory representations. Our approach builds on the selective use of visual information in recognition and a new method (Bubbles) to depict and measure what this information is. We examine three face-recognition tasks (identity, gender, expressive or not) and establish the componential and holistic information responsible for recognition performance. On the basis of this information, we derive task-specific gradients of probability for the allocation of attention to the different regions of the face.

[1]  R. Brown.  How shall a thing be called. , 1958, Psychological review.

[2]  A. Ahumada,et al.  Stimulus Features in Signal Detection , 1971 .

[3]  P. O. Bishop,et al.  Spatial vision. , 1971, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  B. Tversky,et al.  Categories of environmental scenes , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Pictures and names: Making the connection , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[8]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  T. Poggio,et al.  A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects , 1990, Nature.

[10]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Identification of Disoriented Objects: A Dual‐systems Theory , 1990 .

[11]  Michael J. Tarr,et al.  Article Commentary: Orientation-Dependent Mechanisms in Shape Recognition: Further Issues , 1991 .

[12]  I. Biederman,et al.  Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[16]  David C. Knill,et al.  Object classification for human and ideal observers , 1995, Vision Research.

[17]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Face recognition under varying poses: The role of texture and shape , 1996, Vision Research.

[18]  S Edelman,et al.  Faithful representation of similarities among three-dimensional shapes in human vision. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  P. Schyns,et al.  Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition , 1997, Cognition.

[20]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .

[21]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Features and their configuration in face recognition , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[22]  P. Schyns,et al.  Categorization creates functional features , 1997 .

[23]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[24]  James W. Tanaka,et al.  Expertise in object and face recognition , 1997 .

[25]  D. Perrett,et al.  Perceptual asymmetries in judgements of facial attractiveness, age, gender, speech and expression , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[27]  J. Jenkins.  Detecting social signals from the face , 1997 .

[28]  M. Farah,et al.  What is "special" about face perception? , 1998, Psychological review.

[29]  D. Perrett,et al.  Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: an account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations , 1998, Cognition.

[30]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The development of features in object concepts , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[31]  Ranxiao Frances Wang,et al.  Perceiving Real-World Viewpoint Changes , 1998 .

[32]  Philippe G Schyns,et al.  Diagnostic recognition: task constraints, object information, and their interactions , 1998, Cognition.

[33]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Color diagnosticity in object recognition , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  A. Oliva,et al.  Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: when categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations , 1999, Cognition.

[35]  P. Schyns,et al.  Blind to Object Changes: When Learning the Same Object at Different Levels of Categorization Modifies Its Perception , 1999 .

[36]  A. Oliva,et al.  Diagnostic Colors Mediate Scene Recognition , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  Frédéric Gosselin,et al.  Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks , 2001, Vision Research.

[38]  P. Schyns,et al.  Usage of spatial scales for the categorization of faces, objects, and scenes , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[39]  F. Gosselin,et al.  Why do we SLIP to the basic level? Computational constraints and their implementation. , 2001, Psychological review.

[40]  Sridhar Mahadevan,et al.  14 - Gaze Control for Face Learning and Recognition by Humans and Machines , 2001 .