View-invariance learning in object recognition by pigeons depends on error-driven associative learning processes

A model hypothesizing that basic mechanisms of associative learning and generalization underlie object categorization in vertebrates can account for a large body of animal and human data. Here, we report two experiments which implicate error-driven associative learning in pigeons' recognition of objects across changes in viewpoint. Experiment 1 found that object recognition across changes in viewpoint depends on how well each view predicts reward. Analyses of generalization performance, spatial position of pecks to images, and learning curves all showed behavioral patterns analogous to those found in prior studies of relative validity in associative learning. In Experiment 2, pigeons were trained to recognize objects from multiple viewpoints, which usually promotes robust performance at novel views of the trained objects. However, when the objects possessed a salient, informative metric property for solving the task, the pigeons did not show view-invariant recognition of the training objects, a result analogous to the overshadowing effect in associative learning.

[1]  P. Schyns,et al.  Nonaccidental Properties Underlie Shape Recognition in Mammalian and Nonmammalian Vision , 2007, Current Biology.

[2]  J. DiCarlo,et al.  Unsupervised Natural Visual Experience Rapidly Reshapes Size-Invariant Object Representation in Inferior Temporal Cortex , 2010, Neuron.

[3]  Pieter R. Roelfsema,et al.  Attention-Gated Reinforcement Learning of Internal Representations for Classification , 2005, Neural Computation.

[4]  B A Williams,et al.  Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues , 1994, The Behavior analyst.

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

[6]  Fabian A. Soto,et al.  Visual object categorization in birds and primates: Integrating behavioral, neurobiological, and computational evidence within a “general process” framework , 2011, Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience.

[7]  R. Woodworth,et al.  Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental psychology , 1972 .

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

[9]  Ernest A. Lumsden,et al.  Generalization of an operant response to photographs and drawings/silhouettes of a three-dimensional object at various orientations , 1977 .

[10]  K. Haberlandt,et al.  Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  Robbe L. T. Goris,et al.  Invariance in Visual Object Recognition Requires Training: A Computational Argument , 2009, Frontiers in neuroscience.

[12]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  Models of object recognition , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

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

[14]  Aaron P Blaisdell,et al.  Effect of reward probability on spatial and temporal variation. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[15]  D. W. Scott,et al.  Multidimensional Density Estimation , 2005 .

[16]  Michael J. Burke,et al.  Averaging Correlations: Expected Values and Bias in Combined Pearson rs and Fisher's z Transformations , 1998 .

[17]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  View‐invariant object recognition ability develops after discrimination, not mere exposure, at several viewing angles , 2010, The European journal of neuroscience.

[18]  David D. Cox,et al.  What response properties do individual neurons need to underlie position and clutter "invariant" object recognition? , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[19]  I. Biederman,et al.  The pigeon's perception of depth-rotated shapes , 1999 .

[20]  Jonas Rose,et al.  Peck tracking: a method for localizing critical features within complex pictures for pigeons , 2009, Animal Cognition.

[21]  I Biederman,et al.  The pigeon's recognition of drawings of depth-rotated stimuli. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[22]  S. Ullman Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

[23]  Edward A. Wasserman,et al.  Pigeons and humans are more sensitive to nonaccidental than to metric changes in visual objects , 2008, Behavioural Processes.

[24]  P. J. Green,et al.  Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis , 1987 .

[25]  Nicole C Rust,et al.  Ambiguity and invariance: two fundamental challenges for visual processing , 2010, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[26]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  Trade-Off between Object Selectivity and Tolerance in Monkey Inferotemporal Cortex , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[27]  A Friedman,et al.  The effect of distinctive parts on recognition of depth-rotated objects by pigeons (Columba livia) and humans. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[28]  I. Biederman,et al.  Effects of varying stimulus size on object recognition in pigeons. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[29]  I. Biederman,et al.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[31]  Ethan S. Bromberg-Martin,et al.  Midbrain Dopamine Neurons Signal Preference for Advance Information about Upcoming Rewards , 2009, Neuron.

[32]  N. Mackintosh Overshadowing and stimulus intensity , 1976, Animal learning & behavior.

[33]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[34]  S. Gerber,et al.  Unsupervised Natural Experience Rapidly Alters Invariant Object Representation in Visual Cortex , 2008 .

[35]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Learning an object from multiple views enhances its recognition in an orthogonal rotational axis in pigeons , 2002, Vision Research.

[36]  Fabian A. Soto,et al.  Error-driven learning in visual categorization and object recognition: a common-elements model. , 2010, Psychological review.

[37]  R. Vogels,et al.  Effects of Category Learning on the Stimulus Selectivity of Macaque References , 2022 .

[38]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  Fast Readout of Object Identity from Macaque Inferior Temporal Cortex , 2005, Science.

[39]  E. Wasserman STIMULUS-REINFORCER PREDICTIVENESS AND SELECTIVE DISCRIMINATION LEARNING IN PIGEONS ' , 1974 .

[40]  David W. Scott,et al.  Multivariate Density Estimation and Visualization , 2012 .

[41]  Lloyd J. Frei,et al.  Recent advances in operant conditioning technology: A versatile and affordable computerized touchscreen system , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[42]  R. Pisacreta,et al.  Matching of varying-size form stimuli in the pigeon , 1984 .

[43]  Takeo Watanabe,et al.  Perceptual learning rules based on reinforcers and attention , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[44]  Olivier D. Faugeras,et al.  A Constructive Mean-Field Analysis of Multi-Population Neural Networks with Random Synaptic Weights and Stochastic Inputs , 2008, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[45]  Robbe L. T. Goris,et al.  Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience Computational Neuroscience Neural Representations That Support Invariant Object Recognition , 2022 .

[46]  I Biederman,et al.  Seeing things from a different angle: the pigeon's recognition of single geons rotated in depth. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

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

[48]  L. Györfi,et al.  Nonparametric entropy estimation. An overview , 1997 .

[49]  John Cerella,et al.  Absence of perspective processing in the pigeon , 1977, Pattern Recognit..

[50]  I. Pavlov,et al.  Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex , 2010, Annals of Neurosciences.

[51]  I. Biederman,et al.  Discrimination of geons by pigeons: The effects of variations in surface depiction , 2001 .

[52]  John E. Hummel Object Recognition , 2014, Computer Vision, A Reference Guide.

[53]  Thomas L. Griffiths,et al.  Latent Features in Similarity Judgments: A Nonparametric Bayesian Approach , 2008, Neural Computation.

[54]  Alinda Friedman,et al.  Recognizing rotated views of objects: Interpolation versus generalization by humans and pigeons , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[55]  Roger N. Shepard,et al.  Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. , 1979 .

[56]  David D. Cox,et al.  Untangling invariant object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[57]  S. Ullman Object recognition and segmentation by a fragment-based hierarchy , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[58]  Peter Földiák,et al.  Learning Invariance from Transformation Sequences , 1991, Neural Comput..

[59]  Michael E Young,et al.  Response variability in pigeons in a pavlovian task , 2010, Learning & behavior.

[60]  J. Andrade-Cetto Object Recognition , 2003 .

[61]  Joel Z. Leibo,et al.  Learning Generic Invariances in Object Recognition: Translation and Scale , 2010 .

[62]  Marcia L. Spetch,et al.  Recognition by humans and pigeons of novel views of 3-D objects and their photographs. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[63]  Edmund T. Rolls,et al.  Learning invariant object recognition in the visual system with continuous transformations , 2006, Biological Cybernetics.

[64]  Thomas Serre,et al.  A Theory of Object Recognition: Computations and Circuits in the Feedforward Path of the Ventral Stream in Primate Visual Cortex , 2005 .

[65]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[66]  Thomas Serre,et al.  A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[67]  Terrence J. Sejnowski,et al.  Slow Feature Analysis: Unsupervised Learning of Invariances , 2002, Neural Computation.

[68]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Prior experience of rotation is not required for recognizing objects seen from different angles , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[69]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Visual object understanding , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.