The coarse-to-fine hypothesis revisited: Evidence from neuro-computational modeling

The human perceptual system seems to be driven by a coarse-to-fine integration of visual information. Different results have shown a faster integration of low-spatial frequency compared with high-spatial frequency (HSF) information, starting at early retinal processes. The difference in spatial scale decomposition remains throughout the lateral geniculate nucleus (Hubel & Wiesel, 1977) and V1 (Tootell, Silverman, & De Valois, 1981). During the last decade, a debate has emerged concerning the origin of the coarse-to-fine integration. Is it a constant, perceptually driven integration (Parker et al., 1992 and Parker et al., 1996)? Instead, the flexible use hypothesis suggests that different spatial frequency channels could be enhanced depending on the requirement of the task for high-level cognitive processes like categorization (Oliva and Schyns, 1997 and Schyns and Oliva, 1999). In two connectionist simulations, we have shown that global categorization performance could actually be better performed with HSF information when the amount of information is normalized across the different spatial frequency channels. Those results suggest that high-level requirement alone could not explain the coarse-to-fine bias toward LSF information. A hypothesis is proposed concerning the possible implication of the amount of data provided by different spatial frequency channel that might provide the perceptual bias toward LSF information.

[1]  Nicholas Costen,et al.  One extreme or the other or perhaps the golden mean? Issues of spatial resolution in face processing , 1999 .

[2]  R. Dolan,et al.  Distinct spatial frequency sensitivities for processing faces and emotional expressions , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[3]  Robert M. French,et al.  A Connectionist Account of Interference Effects in Early Infant Memory and Categorization , 1997 .

[4]  H. Hughes,et al.  Global Precedence, Spatial Frequency Channels, and the Statistics of Natural Images , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[6]  D. Hubel,et al.  Ferrier lecture - Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex , 1977, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

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

[8]  Padraic Monaghan,et al.  Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the cognitive science society , 2001 .

[9]  Michael J. Berry,et al.  Adaptation of retinal processing to image contrast and spatial scale , 1997, Nature.

[10]  J R Lishman,et al.  Role of coarse and fine spatial information in face and object processing. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  M. Silverman,et al.  Spatial frequency columns in primary visual cortex. , 1981, Science.

[12]  R. French,et al.  The Importance of Starting Blurry: Simulating Improved Basic-Level Category Learning in Infants Due to Weak Visual Acuity , 2019, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[13]  A. Oliva,et al.  From Blobs to Boundary Edges: Evidence for Time- and Spatial-Scale-Dependent Scene Recognition , 1994 .

[14]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Statistics of natural image categories , 2003, Network.

[15]  J. P. Jones,et al.  The two-dimensional spectral structure of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex. , 1987, Journal of neurophysiology.

[16]  C. Enroth-Cugell,et al.  The contrast sensitivity of retinal ganglion cells of the cat , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[17]  Martial Mermillod,et al.  Reversing Category Exclusivities in Infant Perceptual Categorization: Simulations and Data , 2001 .

[18]  J R Lishman,et al.  Evidence for the View That Temporospatial Integration in Vision is Temporally Anisotropic , 1997, Perception.

[19]  P Langley,et al.  Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , 1997 .

[20]  K. Miller,et al.  Different Roles for Simple-Cell and Complex-Cell Inhibition in V1 , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  A J O'Toole,et al.  More about the Difference between Men and Women: Evidence from Linear Neural Networks and the Principal-Component Approach , 1995, Perception.

[22]  D J Field,et al.  Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[23]  A. Oliva,et al.  Coarse Blobs or Fine Edges? Evidence That Information Diagnosticity Changes the Perception of Complex Visual Stimuli , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  J. P. Jones,et al.  The two-dimensional spatial structure of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex. , 1987, Journal of neurophysiology.

[25]  Nathalie Guyader,et al.  Représentation espace-fréquence pour la catégorisation d'images , 2001 .

[26]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  R. French,et al.  A connectionist account of asymmetric category learning in early infancy. , 2000, Developmental psychology.

[28]  D. Field,et al.  Visual sensitivity, blur and the sources of variability in the amplitude spectra of natural scenes , 1997, Vision Research.

[29]  D Marr,et al.  Bandpass channels, zero-crossings, and early visual information processing. , 1979, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[30]  J R Lishman,et al.  Temporal Integration of Spatially Filtered Visual Images , 1992, Perception.