Detecting People in Cubist Art

Although the human visual system is surprisingly robust to extreme distortion when recognizing objects, most evaluations of computer object detection methods focus only on robustness to natural form deformations such as people’s pose changes. To determine whether algorithms truly mirror the flexibility of human vision, they must be compared against human vision at its limits. For example, in Cubist abstract art, painted objects are distorted by object fragmentation and part-reorganization, sometimes to the point that human vision often fails to recognize them. In this paper, we evaluate existing object detection methods on these abstract renditions of objects, comparing human annotators to four state-of-the-art object detectors on a corpus of Picasso paintings. Our results demonstrate that while human perception significantly outperforms current methods, human perception and part-based models exhibit a similarly graceful degradation in object detection performance as the objects become increasingly abstract and fragmented, corroborating the theory of part-based object representation in the brain.

[1]  A. Ishai,et al.  Perception, memory and aesthetics of indeterminate art , 2007, Brain Research Bulletin.

[2]  A. Torralba,et al.  Detecting faces in impoverished images , 2010 .

[3]  Michael B. Lewis,et al.  Face Detection: Mapping Human Performance , 2003, Perception.

[4]  Subhransu Maji,et al.  Detecting People Using Mutually Consistent Poselet Activations , 2010, ECCV.

[5]  Paul M. Laporte Cubism and Science , 1949 .

[6]  Andrea Salgian,et al.  A cubist approach to object recognition , 1998, Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision (IEEE Cat. No.98CH36271).

[7]  Doris Y. Tsao,et al.  A face feature space in the macaque temporal lobe , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  HOGgles: Visualizing Object Detection Features , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision.

[9]  Michel Vidal-Naquet,et al.  Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  David A. McAllester,et al.  Object Detection with Discriminatively Trained Part Based Models , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[11]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Poselets: Body part detectors trained using 3D human pose annotations , 2009, 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision.

[12]  Xiang Zhang,et al.  OverFeat: Integrated Recognition, Localization and Detection using Convolutional Networks , 2013, ICLR.

[13]  R. Vogels,et al.  Effect of image scrambling on inferior temporal cortical responses. , 1999, Neuroreport.

[14]  Alexei A. Efros,et al.  What makes Paris look like Paris? , 2015, Commun. ACM.

[15]  Bill Triggs,et al.  Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[16]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Rich Feature Hierarchies for Accurate Object Detection and Semantic Segmentation , 2013, 2014 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[17]  Joan Bruna,et al.  Intriguing properties of neural networks , 2013, ICLR.

[18]  A. Ishai,et al.  Training Facilitates Object Recognition in Cubist Paintings , 2009, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[19]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  The Pascal Visual Object Classes (VOC) Challenge , 2010, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[20]  Doris Y. Tsao,et al.  Mechanisms of face perception. , 2008, Annual review of neuroscience.

[21]  Alexei A. Efros,et al.  Unsupervised Discovery of Mid-Level Discriminative Patches , 2012, ECCV.

[22]  Shimon Ullman,et al.  Distinctive and compact features , 2008, Image Vis. Comput..

[23]  S. Edelman,et al.  Human Brain Mapping 6:316–328(1998) � A Sequence of Object-Processing Stages Revealed by fMRI in the Human Occipital Lobe , 2022 .