Comparison of Object Recognition Behavior in Human and Monkey

Although the rhesus monkey is used widely as an animal model of human visual processing, it is not known whether invariant visual object recognition behavior is quantitatively comparable across monkeys and humans. To address this question, we systematically compared the core object recognition behavior of two monkeys with that of human subjects. To test true object recognition behavior (rather than image matching), we generated several thousand naturalistic synthetic images of 24 basic-level objects with high variation in viewing parameters and image background. Monkeys were trained to perform binary object recognition tasks on a match-to-sample paradigm. Data from 605 human subjects performing the same tasks on Mechanical Turk were aggregated to characterize “pooled human” object recognition behavior, as well as 33 separate Mechanical Turk subjects to characterize individual human subject behavior. Our results show that monkeys learn each new object in a few days, after which they not only match mean human performance but show a pattern of object confusion that is highly correlated with pooled human confusion patterns and is statistically indistinguishable from individual human subjects. Importantly, this shared human and monkey pattern of 3D object confusion is not shared with low-level visual representations (pixels, V1+; models of the retina and primary visual cortex) but is shared with a state-of-the-art computer vision feature representation. Together, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that rhesus monkeys and humans share a common neural shape representation that directly supports object perception. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT To date, several mammalian species have shown promise as animal models for studying the neural mechanisms underlying high-level visual processing in humans. In light of this diversity, making tight comparisons between nonhuman and human primates is particularly critical in determining the best use of nonhuman primates to further the goal of the field of translating knowledge gained from animal models to humans. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first systematic attempt at comparing a high-level visual behavior of humans and macaque monkeys.

[1]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Neural Substrates of View-Invariant Object Recognition Developed without Experiencing Rotations of the Objects , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[2]  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte,et al.  Deep Supervised, but Not Unsupervised, Models May Explain IT Cortical Representation , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[3]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  The functional architecture of the ventral temporal cortex and its role in categorization , 2014, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[4]  Monica A. Gates,et al.  Color-detection thresholds in rhesus macaque monkeys and humans. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[5]  Daniel L. K. Yamins,et al.  Deep Neural Networks Rival the Representation of Primate IT Cortex for Core Visual Object Recognition , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[6]  Ha Hong,et al.  Performance-optimized hierarchical models predict neural responses in higher visual cortex , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Brian D. Mills,et al.  Bridging the Gap between the Human and Macaque Connectome: A Quantitative Comparison of Global Interspecies Structure-Function Relationships and Network Topology , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  Rob Fergus,et al.  Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks , 2013, ECCV.

[9]  Yann LeCun,et al.  Regularization of Neural Networks using DropConnect , 2013, ICML.

[10]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  CUNY Academic , 2016 .

[11]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

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

[13]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Inter-species activity correlations reveal functional correspondences between monkey and human brain areas , 2012, Nature Methods.

[14]  L. Parr The inversion effect reveals species differences in face processing. , 2011, Acta Psychologica.

[15]  Dwight J. Kravitz,et al.  A new neural framework for visuospatial processing , 2011, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[16]  B. Richmond,et al.  Monkeys Quickly Learn and Generalize Visual Categories without Lateral Prefrontal Cortex , 2010, Neuron.

[17]  James J DiCarlo,et al.  A rodent model for the study of invariant visual object recognition , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  R. Passingham How good is the macaque monkey model of the human brain? , 2009, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[19]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Matching Categorical Object Representations in Inferior Temporal Cortex of Man and Monkey , 2008, Neuron.

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

[21]  David G. Lowe,et al.  University of British Columbia. , 1945, Canadian Medical Association journal.

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

[23]  Thomas Serre,et al.  Robust Object Recognition with Cortex-Like Mechanisms , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[24]  G. Orban,et al.  Comparative mapping of higher visual areas in monkeys and humans , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  Doris Y. Tsao,et al.  Neuroimaging Weighs In: Humans Meet Macaques in “Primate” Visual Cortex , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  C. Acuña,et al.  Discrimination of line orientation in humans and monkeys. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[27]  T. Poggio,et al.  Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  C. Hamilton,et al.  Inversion effect for faces in split-brain monkeys , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  N. M. Brooke,et al.  A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution , 1998, Nature.

[30]  S. Ullman High-Level Vision: Object Recognition and Visual Cognition , 1996 .

[31]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Inferotemporal cortex and object vision. , 1996, Annual review of neuroscience.

[32]  Gideon Keren,et al.  A Handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences : methodological issues , 1993 .

[33]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Signal detection theory as data analysis method and psychological decision model , 1993 .

[34]  G. Orban,et al.  How well do response changes of striate neurons signal differences in orientation: a study in the discriminating monkey , 1990, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[35]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways , 1983, Trends in Neurosciences.

[36]  C. Bruce,et al.  Face recognition by monkeys: Absence of an inversion effect , 1982, Neuropsychologia.

[37]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  Visual areas of the mammalian cerebral cortex. , 1979, Annual review of neuroscience.

[38]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[39]  R. L. de Valois,et al.  Psychophysical studies of monkey vision. 3. Spatial luminance contrast sensitivity tests of macaque and human observers. , 1974, Vision research.

[40]  R. L. Valois,et al.  Psychophysical studies of monkey vision. I. Macaque luminosity and color vision tests. , 1974, Vision research.

[41]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex , 1962, The Journal of physiology.

[42]  C. Spearman CORRELATION CALCULATED FROM FAULTY DATA , 1910 .

[43]  W. Brown SOME EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS IN THE CORRELATION OF MENTAL ABILITIES1 , 1910 .