↓ Skip to main content

Feedforward object-vision models only tolerate small image variations compared to human

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Feedforward object-vision models only tolerate small image variations compared to human
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2014.00074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masoud Ghodrati, Amirhossein Farzmahdi, Karim Rajaei, Reza Ebrahimpour, Seyed-Mahdi Khaligh-Razavi

Abstract

Invariant object recognition is a remarkable ability of primates' visual system that its underlying mechanism has constantly been under intense investigations. Computational modeling is a valuable tool toward understanding the processes involved in invariant object recognition. Although recent computational models have shown outstanding performances on challenging image databases, they fail to perform well in image categorization under more complex image variations. Studies have shown that making sparse representation of objects by extracting more informative visual features through a feedforward sweep can lead to higher recognition performances. Here, however, we show that when the complexity of image variations is high, even this approach results in poor performance compared to humans. To assess the performance of models and humans in invariant object recognition tasks, we built a parametrically controlled image database consisting of several object categories varied in different dimensions and levels, rendered from 3D planes. Comparing the performance of several object recognition models with human observers shows that only in low-level image variations the models perform similar to humans in categorization tasks. Furthermore, the results of our behavioral experiments demonstrate that, even under difficult experimental conditions (i.e., briefly presented masked stimuli with complex image variations), human observers performed outstandingly well, suggesting that the models are still far from resembling humans in invariant object recognition. Taken together, we suggest that learning sparse informative visual features, although desirable, is not a complete solution for future progresses in object-vision modeling. We show that this approach is not of significant help in solving the computational crux of object recognition (i.e., invariant object recognition) when the identity-preserving image variations become more complex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Germany 2 2%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 23%
Researcher 18 22%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Professor 4 5%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 17 20%
Psychology 16 19%
Computer Science 14 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Linguistics 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,809,260
of 23,310,485 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#1,068
of 1,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,981
of 230,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#14
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,310,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,371 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,000 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.