Natural Selection and Shape Perception

We present a formal framework that generalizes and subsumes the standard Bayesian framework for vision. While incorporating the fundamental role of probabilistic inference, our Computational Evolutionary Perception (CEP) framework also incorporates fitness in a fundamental way, and it allows us to consider different possible relationships between the objective world and perceptual representations (e.g., in evolving visual systems). In our framework, shape is not assumed to be a “reconstruction” of an objective world property. It is simply a representational format that has been tuned by natural selection to guide adaptive behavior. In brief, shape is an effective code for fitness. Because fitness depends crucially on the actions of an organism, shape representations are closely tied to actions. We model this connection formally using the Perception-Decision-Action (PDA) loop. Among other things, the PDA loop clarifies how, even though one cannot know the effects of one’s actions in the objective world itself, one can nevertheless know the results of those effects back in our perceptions. This, in turn, explains how organisms can interact effectively with a fundamentally unknown objective world.

[1]  P. Laplace Memoir on the Probability of the Causes of Events , 1986 .

[2]  Manish Singh,et al.  Perceived orientation of complex shape reflects graded part decomposition. , 2006, Journal of vision.

[3]  P. Kellman,et al.  From fragments to objects : segmentation and grouping in vision , 2001 .

[4]  D. Kersten,et al.  Illusions, perception and Bayes , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[5]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See , 1998 .

[6]  Z. Pizlo Perception viewed as an inverse problem , 2001, Vision Research.

[7]  R. Baierlein Probability Theory: The Logic of Science , 2004 .

[8]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Part-Based Representations of Visual Shape and Implications for Visual Cognition , 2001 .

[9]  L. Maloney,et al.  Decision-theoretic models of visual perception and action , 2010, Vision Research.

[10]  Donald D. Hoffman Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See , 1998 .

[11]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  The Interface Theory of Perception , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  L. Albertazzi,et al.  Perception beyond inference : the information content of visual processes , 2010 .

[13]  C. Fuchs QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism , 2010, 1003.5209.

[14]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[15]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  A Bayesian approach to the evolution of perceptual and cognitive systems , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Rainer Mausfeld,et al.  The physicalistic trap in perception theory , 2002 .

[17]  Michael S. Landy,et al.  Bayesian modeling of visual perception , 2002 .

[18]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  The perception of shading and reflectance , 1996 .

[19]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  On the perception of shape from shading , 1988, Nature.

[20]  R. Mausfeld,et al.  Perception and the Physical World: Psychological and Philosophical Issues in Perception , 2002 .

[21]  H. Blum Biological shape and visual science (part I) , 1973 .

[22]  Ivan Poupyrev,et al.  3D User Interfaces: Theory and Practice , 2004 .

[23]  D. M. Appleby,et al.  Properties of QBist State Spaces , 2009, 0910.2750.

[24]  T. Poggio,et al.  BOOK REVIEW David Marr’s Vision: floreat computational neuroscience VISION: A COMPUTATIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE HUMAN REPRESENTATION AND PROCESSING OF VISUAL INFORMATION , 2009 .

[25]  Zygmunt Pizlo,et al.  New approach to the perception of 3D shape based on veridicality, complexity, symmetry and volume , 2010, Vision Research.

[26]  A. Yuille,et al.  Object perception as Bayesian inference. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[27]  Dhiraj Joshi,et al.  Object Categorization: Computer and Human Vision Perspectives , 2008 .

[28]  I. Biederman,et al.  Neural evidence for intermediate representations in object recognition , 2006, Vision Research.

[29]  Manish Singh,et al.  Bayesian estimation of the shape skeleton , 2010 .

[30]  Sven J. Dickinson,et al.  Object Categorization: Computer and Human Vision Perspectives , 2009 .

[31]  Ruediger Schack,et al.  Quantum-Bayesian Coherence , 2009, 1301.3274.

[32]  W. Richards,et al.  Perception as Bayesian Inference , 2008 .

[33]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Probabilistic Models of the Brain: Perception and Neural Function , 2002 .

[34]  Donald D Hoffman,et al.  Computational Evolutionary Perception , 2012, Perception.

[35]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Segmentation of object outlines into parts: A large-scale integrative study , 2006, Cognition.

[36]  Donald D Hoffman,et al.  Natural selection and veridical perceptions. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

[37]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[38]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Object Categorization: The Interface Theory of Perception: Natural Selection Drives True Perception to Swift Extinction , 2009 .