Exploiting Core Knowledge for Visual Object Recognition

Humans recognize thousands of objects, and with relative tolerance to variable retinal inputs. The acquisition of this ability is not fully understood, and it remains an area in which artificial systems have yet to surpass people. We sought to investigate the memory process that supports object recognition. Specifically, we investigated the association of inputs that co-occur over short periods of time. We tested the hypothesis that human perception exploits expectations about object kinematics to limit the scope of association to inputs that are likely to have the same token as a source. In several experiments we exposed participants to images of objects, and we then tested recognition sensitivity. Using motion, we manipulated whether successive encounters with an image took place through kinematics that implied the same or a different token as the source of those encounters. Images were injected with noise, or shown at varying orientations, and we included 2 manipulations of motion kinematics. Across all experiments, memory performance was better for images that had been previously encountered with kinematics that implied a single token. A model-based analysis similarly showed greater memory strength when images were shown via kinematics that implied a single token. These results suggest that constraints from physics are built into the mechanisms that support memory about objects. Such constraints—often characterized as ‘Core Knowledge’—are known to support perception and cognition broadly, even in young infants. But they have never been considered as a mechanism for memory with respect to recognition.

[1]  S. Anstis The perception of apparent movement. , 1980, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[2]  Jenny Saffran Faculty Opinions recommendation of Cognitive development. Observing the unexpected enhances infants' learning and exploration. , 2019, Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature.

[3]  Daniel C. Dennett,et al.  Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem of AI , 1990, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[4]  R. Shepard Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures , 1967 .

[5]  A. Hollingworth,et al.  Object correspondence across brief occlusion is established on the basis of both spatiotemporal and surface feature cues , 2009, Cognition.

[6]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Object Individuation in Infancy: The Use of Featural Information in Reasoning about Occlusion Events , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[8]  G. Alvarez,et al.  Space and time, not surface features, guide object persistence , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Jonathan Flombaum,et al.  Spatiotemporal priority as a fundamental principle of object persistence , 2009 .

[10]  James J. DiCarlo,et al.  How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition? , 2012, Neuron.

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

[12]  N. Roth PERCEPTION AND MEMORY. , 1963, Journal of the Hillside Hospital.

[13]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Visual object recognition. , 1996, Annual review of neuroscience.

[14]  Shauna M. Stark,et al.  A task to assess behavioral pattern separation (BPS) in humans: Data from healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and toward structured representations. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[16]  E. Spelke,et al.  Spatiotemporal continuity, smoothness of motion and object identity in infancy , 1995 .

[17]  Cathleen M Moore,et al.  Features, as well as space and time, guide object persistence , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  H. Heinze,et al.  Reward-related fMRI activation of dopaminergic midbrain is associated with enhanced hippocampus-dependent long-term memory formation , 2005 .

[19]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  S. Carey,et al.  Infants’ Metaphysics: The Case of Numerical Identity , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  C. Ranganath,et al.  Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Promotes Long-Term Memory Formation through Its Role in Working Memory Organization , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[23]  Brian J Scholl,et al.  Dynamic Object Individuation in Rhesus Macaques , 2004, Psychological science.

[24]  Jonathan I. Flombaum,et al.  A temporal same-object advantage in the tunnel effect: facilitated change detection for persisting objects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[25]  Brian J. Scholl,et al.  Attentive tracking of objects vs. substances , 2010 .

[26]  E. Vogel,et al.  Interactions between attention and working memory , 2006, Neuroscience.

[27]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Interactions between Visual Attention and Episodic Retrieval: Dissociable Contributions of Parietal Regions during Gist-Based False Recognition , 2012, Neuron.

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

[29]  Amy L. Shelton,et al.  Reduction of Hippocampal Hyperactivity Improves Cognition in Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment , 2012, Neuron.

[30]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[31]  Marvin M Chun,et al.  Spatiotemporal object continuity in human ventral visual cortex , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  H. Bülthoff,et al.  Effects of temporal association on recognition memory , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  Nicolas Pinto,et al.  Why is Real-World Visual Object Recognition Hard? , 2008, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[34]  George E. Newman,et al.  Early understandings of the link between agents and order , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  James J. DiCarlo,et al.  Unsupervised Natural Experience Rapidly Alters Invariant Object Representation in Visual Cortex , 2008, Science.

[36]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Tracking Multiple Items Through Occlusion: Clues to Visual Objecthood , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  G. Wallis The role of object motion in forging long-term representations of objects , 2002 .

[38]  B. Scholl,et al.  Visual perception involves event-type representations: The case of containment versus occlusion. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  Luke A. Burke,et al.  On the Tunnel Effect , 1952 .

[40]  Werner X Schneider,et al.  Breaking object correspondence across saccades impairs object recognition: The role of color and luminance. , 2016, Journal of vision.

[41]  Katherine D. Kinzler,et al.  Core knowledge. , 2007, Developmental science.

[42]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

[43]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[44]  James P. Egan,et al.  Recognition memory and the operating characteristic. , 1958 .

[45]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Is the Top Object Adequately Supported by the Bottom Object? Young Infants' Understanding of Support Relations , 1990 .

[46]  R. Haber,et al.  Perception and memory for pictures: Single-trial learning of 2500 visual stimuli , 1970 .

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

[48]  M. Chun,et al.  Interactions between attention and memory , 2007, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[49]  Yaakov Stern,et al.  Promising developments in neuropsychological approaches for the detection of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: a selective review , 2013, Alzheimer's Research & Therapy.

[50]  Joel Z. Leibo,et al.  Learning and disrupting invariance in visual recognition with a temporal association rule , 2011, Front. Comput. Neurosci..

[51]  Jonathan I. Flombaum,et al.  Spatiotemporal continuity alters long-term memory representation of objects , 2013 .

[52]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  The persistence of object file representations , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[53]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  50 Years of object recognition: Directions forward , 2013, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[54]  J. Desmond,et al.  Making memories: brain activity that predicts how well visual experience will be remembered. , 1998, Science.

[55]  T. Wickens Elementary Signal Detection Theory , 2001 .

[56]  J. Gyoba,et al.  A new response-time measure of object persistence in the tunnel effect. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[57]  J. Fodor,et al.  The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology , 1984 .

[58]  Arnold W. M. Smeulders,et al.  The Amsterdam Library of Object Images , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[59]  Michael A Yassa,et al.  Assessing recollection and familiarity of similar lures in a behavioral pattern separation task , 2013, Hippocampus.

[60]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[61]  C. Stark,et al.  Pattern separation in the hippocampus , 2011, Trends in Neurosciences.

[62]  Arvid Herwig,et al.  Breaking Object Correspondence Across Saccadic Eye Movements Deteriorates Object Recognition , 2015, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[63]  M. Potter Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[64]  C. Stern,et al.  Prefrontal–Temporal Circuitry for Episodic Encoding and Subsequent Memory , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[65]  R Ratcliff,et al.  Testing global memory models using ROC curves. , 1992, Psychological review.

[66]  Assessing Recollection and Familiarity in Low Functioning Autism , 2013, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[67]  B. Scholl,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article ATTENTIVE TRACKING OF OBJECTS VERSUS SUBSTANCES , 2022 .

[68]  Ashleigh M. Richard,et al.  Establishing object correspondence across eye movements: Flexible use of spatiotemporal and surface feature information , 2008, Cognition.

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

[70]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Seeing Two as One: Linking Apparent Motion and Repetition Blindness , 1997 .

[71]  S. Courtney,et al.  A signal detection theory analysis of behavioral pattern separation paradigms , 2015, Learning & memory.

[72]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Object individuation in young infants: Further evidence with an event‐monitoring paradigm , 1998 .

[73]  B. Scholl,et al.  Cohesion as a constraint on object persistence in infancy. , 2008, Developmental science.

[74]  David D. Cox,et al.  Does Learned Shape Selectivity in Inferior Temporal Cortex Automatically Generalize Across Retinal Position? , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[75]  J. Wixted Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. , 2007, Psychological review.