Searching for Category-Consistent Features

This article introduces a generative model of category representation that uses computer vision methods to extract category-consistent features (CCFs) directly from images of category exemplars. The model was trained on 4,800 images of common objects, and CCFs were obtained for 68 categories spanning subordinate, basic, and superordinate levels in a category hierarchy. When participants searched for these same categories, targets cued at the subordinate level were preferentially fixated, but fixated targets were verified faster when they followed a basic-level cue. The subordinate-level advantage in guidance is explained by the number of target-category CCFs, a measure of category specificity that decreases with movement up the category hierarchy. The basic-level advantage in verification is explained by multiplying the number of CCFs by sibling distance, a measure of category distinctiveness. With this model, the visual representations of real-world object categories, each learned from the vast numbers of image exemplars accumulated throughout everyday experience, can finally be studied.

[1]  John C. Russ,et al.  The Image Processing Handbook , 2016, Microscopy and Microanalysis.

[2]  P. Kay,et al.  Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  G. Zelinsky,et al.  Eye can read your mind: decoding gaze fixations to reveal categorical search targets. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[4]  G LoweDavid,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004 .

[5]  G. Murphy,et al.  Category learning with minimal prior knowledge. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Yanxi Liu,et al.  Online Selection of Discriminative Tracking Features , 2005, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[7]  John R. Anderson A spreading activation theory of memory. , 1983 .

[8]  John R. Anderson ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. , 1996 .

[9]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Context theory of classification learning. , 1978 .

[10]  M. Pazzani Influence of prior knowledge on concept acquisition: Experimental and computational results. , 1991 .

[11]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .

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

[13]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Relations between prototype, exemplar, and decision bound models of categorization , 1993 .

[14]  E. Rosch,et al.  Categorization of Natural Objects , 1981 .

[15]  Gabriela Csurka,et al.  Visual categorization with bags of keypoints , 2002, eccv 2004.

[16]  B. C. Griffith,et al.  The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  The Effects of Target Typicality on Guidance and Verification in Categorical Search , 2013 .

[19]  P. Roelfsema,et al.  Different States in Visual Working Memory: When It Guides Attention and When It Does Not , 2022 .

[20]  Robert L. Goldstone The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork , 1994, Cognition.

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

[22]  H. Brownell,et al.  Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  M. Pazzani Influence of prior knowledge on concept acquisition: Experimental and computational results. , 1991 .

[24]  Eleanor Rosch,et al.  Principles of Categorization , 1978 .

[25]  Ilkay Ulusoy,et al.  Generative versus discriminative methods for object recognition , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[26]  J. G. Snodgrass,et al.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. Human learning and memory.

[27]  Kenneth J. Kurtz,et al.  Human Category Learning: Toward a Broader Explanatory Account , 2015 .

[28]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  A response time theory of separability and integrality in speeded classification , 1994 .

[29]  Cordelia Schmid,et al.  Coloring Local Feature Extraction , 2006, ECCV.

[30]  G. Zelinsky,et al.  Modeling guidance and recognition in categorical search: bridging human and computer object detection. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[31]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. , 1997, Psychological review.

[32]  Kimery R. Levering,et al.  Observation versus classification in supervised category learning , 2015, Memory & cognition.

[33]  J. Kruschke,et al.  ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. , 1992, Psychological review.

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

[35]  S. Laurence,et al.  Concepts: Core Readings , 1999 .

[36]  D. Medin,et al.  SUSTAIN: a network model of category learning. , 2004, Psychological review.

[37]  G. Zelinsky,et al.  Short article: Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[38]  Gregory J Zelinsky,et al.  Effects of target typicality on categorical search. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[39]  G. Murphy,et al.  The Big Book of Concepts , 2002 .

[40]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  David L. Faigman,et al.  Human category learning. , 2005, Annual review of psychology.

[42]  Shigeo Abe DrEng Pattern Classification , 2001, Springer London.

[43]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[44]  James W Bisley,et al.  The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[45]  Alexander Pollatsek,et al.  Typicality aids search for an unspecified target, but only in identification and not in attentional guidance , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[47]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Searching through the hierarchy: How level of target categorization affects visual search , 2012, Visual cognition.

[48]  Seth Chin-Parker,et al.  Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: a comparison of inference learning and classification learning. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[49]  Gregory J Zelinsky,et al.  More target features in visual working memory leads to poorer search guidance: evidence from contralateral delay activity. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[50]  Yifan Peng,et al.  Modelling eye movements in a categorical search task , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.