RECONSIDERING THE ROLE OF STRUCTURE IN VISION

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the role of structure in mental representations and visual object recognition. A match between an incoming image and a stored image is registered based on global similarity across a homogeneous input space. One of the best pieces of evidence for structural models in visual recognition is text reading. Recent empirical evidence suggests that word recognition depends on identifying letters as opposed to recognizing the word holistically as a single pattern. Structural accounts of recognition are those in which the identification of a visual object depends on both a set of features and the relations between those features within some representational space. The primate visual system is clearly able to extract and represent structural information, for example, spatial relations, at a wide variety of scales. The computational utility of compositional structure has been considered in depth with regard to a number of cognitive domains, and in particular, with respect to language. A compositional architecture allows you to generate arbitrary constructions based on a limited set of starting units, a property referred to as productivity.

[1]  S Lehéricy,et al.  The visual word form area: spatial and temporal characterization of an initial stage of reading in normal subjects and posterior split-brain patients. , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[2]  D. Maurer,et al.  The many faces of configural processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  Nathan Intrator,et al.  Towards structural systematicity in distributed, statically bound visual representations , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Some Demonstrations of the Effects of Structural Descriptions in Mental Imagery , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition , 2003, Nature.

[6]  Michael J. Tarr,et al.  The role of surface pigmentation for recognition revealed by contrast reversal in faces and Greebles , 2005, Vision Research.

[7]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Part Boundaries Alter the Perception of Transparency , 1998 .

[8]  Michael L. Peterson,et al.  Perception of Faces, Objects, and Scenes: Analytic and Holistic Processes (335-355) , 2006 .

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

[10]  D. Perrett,et al.  Evidence accumulation in cell populations responsive to faces: an account of generalisation of recognition without mental transformations , 1998, Cognition.

[11]  Robert L. Goldstone Unitization during category learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Visual comparisons within and between object parts: evidence for a single-part superiority effect , 2003, Vision Research.

[13]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  Distortion Invariant Object Recognition in the Dynamic Link Architecture , 1993, IEEE Trans. Computers.

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

[15]  Elie Bienenstock,et al.  Compositionality, MDL Priors, and Object Recognition , 1996, NIPS.

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton Some Demonstrations of the Effects of Structural Descriptions in Mental Imagery , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture , 1993 .

[18]  E. Rolls,et al.  INVARIANT FACE AND OBJECT RECOGNITION IN THE VISUAL SYSTEM , 1997, Progress in Neurobiology.

[19]  Yali Amit,et al.  Shape Quantization and Recognition with Randomized Trees , 1997, Neural Computation.

[20]  Michael J. Black,et al.  Fields of Experts: a framework for learning image priors , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[21]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Face processing in humans is compatible with a simple shape–based model of vision , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Perceptual Grouping by Selection of a Logically Minimal Model , 2003, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[23]  Donald Geman,et al.  Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[24]  Jon Driver,et al.  Parallel computation of symmetry but not repetition within single visual shapes , 1994 .

[25]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Image-based object recognition in man and machines , 2001 .

[26]  Peter Szolovits,et al.  What Is a Knowledge Representation? , 1993, AI Mag..

[27]  M. Tarr,et al.  Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  Irving Biederman,et al.  One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects , 1999, Vision Research.

[29]  Cindy M. Bukach,et al.  Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an expertise framework , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  M. Tarr Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  Heinrich H Bülthoff,et al.  Image-based object recognition in man, monkey and machine , 1998, Cognition.

[32]  Michael J Tarr,et al.  What defines a view? , 2001, Vision Research.

[33]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Recovery of 3D volume from 2-tone images of novel objects , 1998, Cognition.

[34]  J. Feldman What is a visual object? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  S. Ullman Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

[36]  R. Yin Looking at Upside-down Faces , 1969 .

[37]  Michael J. Tarr Is human object recognition better described by geon structural description or by multiple views , 1995 .

[38]  M. Tarr Visual Object Recognition: Can A Single Mechanism Suffice? , 1998 .

[39]  I. Biederman,et al.  Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). , 1995 .

[40]  D. Maurer,et al.  Neuroperception: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[41]  P. Schyns,et al.  Categorization creates functional features , 1997 .

[42]  Bartlett W. Mel SEEMORE: Combining Color, Shape, and Texture Histogramming in a Neurally Inspired Approach to Visual Object Recognition , 1997, Neural Computation.

[43]  M. Farah,et al.  Parts and Wholes in Face Recognition , 1993, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[44]  M. J. Tarr,et al.  COMMENT ON: IS HUMAN OBJECT RECOGNITION BETTER DESCRIBED BY GEON STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTIONS OR BY MULTIPLE VIEWS ? BY BARTRAM D.J. , 1995 .

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

[46]  Garrison W. Cottrell,et al.  Holistic Processing Develops Because it is Good , 2005 .

[47]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Where View-based Theories Break Down: The Role of Structure in Shape Perception and Object Recognition , 2000 .

[48]  M J Tarr,et al.  Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

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

[51]  Zenon W. Pylyshyn,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis , 1988, Cognition.

[52]  M. Tarr,et al.  Visual Object Recognition , 1996, ISTCS.

[53]  M. Tarr,et al.  Spatial language and spatial representation , 1995, Cognition.

[54]  Jacob Feldman,et al.  Determination of visual figure and ground in dynamically deforming shapes , 2006, Cognition.

[55]  David K. A. Barnes,et al.  correction: Early visual experience and face processing , 2001, Nature.

[56]  Shimon Edelman,et al.  Representing three-dimensional objects by sets of activities of receptive fields , 1993, Biological Cybernetics.

[57]  M. Tarr,et al.  Differing views on views: comments on Biederman and Bar (1999) , 2000, Vision Research.

[58]  Martin Arguin,et al.  Independent Processing of Parts and of Their Spatial Organization in Complex Visual Objects , 2004, Psychological science.

[59]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.