Cargando…
Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward
In classical models of object recognition, first, basic features (e.g., edges and lines) are analyzed by independent filters that mimic the receptive field profiles of V1 neurons. In a feedforward fashion, the outputs of these filters are fed to filters at the next processing stage, pooling informat...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25374535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2014.00135 |
_version_ | 1782340742491930624 |
---|---|
author | Herzog, Michael H. Clarke, Aaron M. |
author_facet | Herzog, Michael H. Clarke, Aaron M. |
author_sort | Herzog, Michael H. |
collection | PubMed |
description | In classical models of object recognition, first, basic features (e.g., edges and lines) are analyzed by independent filters that mimic the receptive field profiles of V1 neurons. In a feedforward fashion, the outputs of these filters are fed to filters at the next processing stage, pooling information across several filters from the previous level, and so forth at subsequent processing stages. Low-level processing determines high-level processing. Information lost on lower stages is irretrievably lost. Models of this type have proven to be very successful in many fields of vision, but have failed to explain object recognition in general. Here, we present experiments that, first, show that, similar to demonstrations from the Gestaltists, figural aspects determine low-level processing (as much as the other way around). Second, performance on a single element depends on all the other elements in the visual scene. Small changes in the overall configuration can lead to large changes in performance. Third, grouping of elements is key. Only if we know how elements group across the entire visual field, can we determine performance on individual elements, i.e., challenging the classical stereotypical filtering approach, which is at the very heart of most vision models. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4205941 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42059412014-11-05 Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward Herzog, Michael H. Clarke, Aaron M. Front Comput Neurosci Neuroscience In classical models of object recognition, first, basic features (e.g., edges and lines) are analyzed by independent filters that mimic the receptive field profiles of V1 neurons. In a feedforward fashion, the outputs of these filters are fed to filters at the next processing stage, pooling information across several filters from the previous level, and so forth at subsequent processing stages. Low-level processing determines high-level processing. Information lost on lower stages is irretrievably lost. Models of this type have proven to be very successful in many fields of vision, but have failed to explain object recognition in general. Here, we present experiments that, first, show that, similar to demonstrations from the Gestaltists, figural aspects determine low-level processing (as much as the other way around). Second, performance on a single element depends on all the other elements in the visual scene. Small changes in the overall configuration can lead to large changes in performance. Third, grouping of elements is key. Only if we know how elements group across the entire visual field, can we determine performance on individual elements, i.e., challenging the classical stereotypical filtering approach, which is at the very heart of most vision models. Frontiers Media S.A. 2014-10-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4205941/ /pubmed/25374535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2014.00135 Text en Copyright © 2014 Herzog and Clarke. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Neuroscience Herzog, Michael H. Clarke, Aaron M. Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward |
title | Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward |
title_full | Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward |
title_fullStr | Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward |
title_full_unstemmed | Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward |
title_short | Why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward |
title_sort | why vision is not both hierarchical and feedforward |
topic | Neuroscience |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4205941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25374535 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2014.00135 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT herzogmichaelh whyvisionisnotbothhierarchicalandfeedforward AT clarkeaaronm whyvisionisnotbothhierarchicalandfeedforward |