Neural Network Models as Evidence for Different Types of Visual Representations

Cook (1995) criticizes the work of Jacobs ond Kosslyn (1994) on spatial relations, shape representations, and receptive fields in neural network models on the grounds that first-order correlations between input and output unit activities con explain the results. We reply briefly ta Cook’s orguments here (ond in Kosslyn, Chabris, Morsolek, Jacobs, & Koenig, 1995) and discuss how new simulations can confirm the importance of receptive field size as a crucial variable in the encoding of categorical ond coordinate spatial relations and the corresponding shape representations; such simulations would testify to the computational distinction between the different types of representations.

[1]  B. Laeng Lateralization of Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Functions: A Study of Unilateral Stroke Patients , 1994, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  A computational analysis of the apprehension of spatial relations , 1996 .

[3]  J. Hellige,et al.  Categorization versus distance: Hemispheric differences for processing spatial information , 1989, Memory & cognition.

[4]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: computational analyses and computer simulations. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  Bruno Laeng,et al.  Cerebral lateralization for the processing of spatial coordinates and categories in left- and right-handers , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  On computational evidence for different types of spatial relations encoding: reply to Cook et al. (1995). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  R. Rosenthal Science and Ethics in Conducting, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Research , 1994, Psychological science.

[8]  S. Kosslyn Seeing and Imagining in the Cerebral Hemispheres: A Computational Approach , 1988 .

[9]  H. Früh,et al.  The cerebral hemispheres and neural network simulations: design considerations. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  Robert A. Jacobs,et al.  Encoding Shape and Spatial Relations: The Role of Receptive Field Size in Coordinating Complementary Representations , 1994, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  R. Rosenthal Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[12]  Norman D. Cook Correlations Between Input and Output Units in Neural Networks , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  C. B. Cave,et al.  Evidence for two types of spatial representations: hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.