Contextual Congruency Effect in Natural Scene Categorization: Different Strategies in Humans and Monkeys (Macaca mulatta)

Rapid visual categorization is a crucial ability for survival of many animal species, including monkeys and humans. In real conditions, objects (either animate or inanimate) are never isolated but embedded in a complex background made of multiple elements. It has been shown in humans and monkeys that the contextual background can either enhance or impair object categorization, depending on context/object congruency (for example, an animal in a natural vs. man-made environment). Moreover, a scene is not only a collection of objects; it also has global physical features (i.e phase and amplitude of Fourier spatial frequencies) which help define its gist. In our experiment, we aimed to explore and compare the contribution of the amplitude spectrum of scenes in the context-object congruency effect in monkeys and humans. We designed a rapid visual categorization task, Animal versus Non-Animal, using as contexts both real scenes photographs and noisy backgrounds built from the amplitude spectrum of real scenes but with randomized phase spectrum. We showed that even if the contextual congruency effect was comparable in both species when the context was a real scene, it differed when the foreground object was surrounded by a noisy background: in monkeys we found a similar congruency effect in both conditions, but in humans the congruency effect was absent (or even reversed) when the context was a noisy background.

[1]  M. Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  Humans and monkeys share visual representations , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  Roger K. R. Thompson,et al.  How to read a picture: Lessons from nonhuman primates , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Jennifer J. Pokorny,et al.  Monkeys recognize the faces of group mates in photographs , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  J. Fagot,et al.  Picture processing in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) , 2009, Behavioural Processes.

[5]  Olivier R. Joubert,et al.  The Time-Course of Visual Categorizations: You Spot the Animal Faster than the Bird , 2009, PloS one.

[6]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Rapid visual categorization of natural scene contexts with equalized amplitude spectrum and increasing phase noise. , 2009, Journal of vision.

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

[8]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Early interference of context congruence on object processing in rapid visual categorization of natural scenes. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[9]  J. Call,et al.  Behavioural responses to photographs by pictorially naïve baboons (Papio anubis), gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) , 2008, Behavioural Processes.

[10]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Integrated Contextual Representation for Objects' Identities and Their Locations , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  Lester C. Loschky,et al.  The importance of information localization in scene gist recognition. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Processing scene context: Fast categorization and object interference , 2007, Vision Research.

[13]  A. Torralba,et al.  The role of context in object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Object category structure in response patterns of neuronal population in monkey inferior temporal cortex. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Searching for camouflaged targets: Effects of target-background similarity on visual search , 2006, Vision Research.

[16]  A. Mizuno,et al.  A change of the leading player in flow Visualization technique , 2006, J. Vis..

[17]  Olivier R. Joubert,et al.  How long to get to the “gist” of real-world natural scenes? , 2005 .

[18]  K. Fujii,et al.  Visualization for the analysis of fluid motion , 2005, J. Vis..

[19]  Jodi L. Davenport,et al.  Scene Consistency in Object and Background Perception , 2004, Psychological science.

[20]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[21]  Nathalie Guyader,et al.  Image phase or amplitude? Rapid scene categorization is an amplitude-based process. , 2004, Comptes rendus biologies.

[22]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Modeling the Shape of the Scene: A Holistic Representation of the Spatial Envelope , 2001, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[23]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Statistics of natural image categories , 2003, Network.

[24]  A. Oliva,et al.  Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks , 2002, Vision Research.

[25]  Ludwig Huber,et al.  The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people versus nonpeople images by pigeons , 2001 .

[26]  Joël Fagot,et al.  Picture Perception in Animals , 2000 .

[27]  J. Fagot,et al.  What is the evidence for an equivalence between objects and pictures in birds and nonhuman primates , 1999 .

[28]  Michael S. Gazzaniga,et al.  Creating false memories for visual scenes , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Rapid categorization of natural images by rhesus monkeys , 1998, Neuroreport.

[30]  I. Biederman,et al.  Effects of spatial rearrangement of object components on picture recognition in pigeons. , 1996, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

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

[32]  N. Logothetis,et al.  View-dependent object recognition by monkeys , 1994, Current Biology.

[33]  I. Biederman,et al.  Pigeons Are Sensitive to the Spatial Organization of Complex Visual Stimuli , 1993 .

[34]  David Gaffan,et al.  A Spurious Category-Specific Visual Agnosia for Living Things in Normal Human and Nonhuman Primates , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[35]  Edward A. Wasserman,et al.  Categorical discrimination and generalization in pigeons all negative stimuli are not created equal , 1992 .

[36]  W. Roberts,et al.  Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. , 1988 .

[37]  M. R. D'Amato,et al.  The person concept in monkeys (Cebus apella) , 1988 .

[38]  Charles A. Edwards,et al.  Memorization and “feature selection” in the acquisition of natural concepts in pigeons☆ , 1987 .

[39]  A. M. Schrier,et al.  Categorization of natural stimuli by monkeys (Macaca mulatta): effects of stimulus set size and modification of exemplars. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[40]  M. Povar,et al.  Studies of concept formation by stumptailed monkeys: Concepts humans, monkeys, and letter A.. , 1984 .

[41]  A. Wright,et al.  Pictorial similarity judgments and the organization of visual memory in the rhesus monkey. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[42]  John Cerella,et al.  The pigeon's analysis of pictures , 1980, Pattern Recognit..

[43]  tephen E. Palmer The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[44]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  Complex Visual Concept in the Pigeon , 1964, Science.

[45]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.