↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian integration of position and orientation cues in perception of biological and non-biological forms

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Bayesian integration of position and orientation cues in perception of biological and non-biological forms
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00091
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven M. Thurman, Hongjing Lu

Abstract

Visual form analysis is fundamental to shape perception and likely plays a central role in perception of more complex dynamic shapes, such as moving objects or biological motion. Two primary form-based cues serve to represent the overall shape of an object: the spatial position and the orientation of locations along the boundary of the object. However, it is unclear how the visual system integrates these two sources of information in dynamic form analysis, and in particular how the brain resolves ambiguities due to sensory uncertainty and/or cue conflict. In the current study, we created animations of sparsely-sampled dynamic objects (human walkers or rotating squares) comprised of oriented Gabor patches in which orientation could either coincide or conflict with information provided by position cues. When the cues were incongruent, we found a characteristic trade-off between position and orientation information whereby position cues increasingly dominated perception as the relative uncertainty of orientation increased and vice versa. Furthermore, we found no evidence for differences in the visual processing of biological and non-biological objects, casting doubt on the claim that biological motion may be specialized in the human brain, at least in specific terms of form analysis. To explain these behavioral results quantitatively, we adopt a probabilistic template-matching model that uses Bayesian inference within local modules to estimate object shape separately from either spatial position or orientation signals. The outputs of the two modules are integrated with weights that reflect individual estimates of subjective cue reliability, and integrated over time to produce a decision about the perceived dynamics of the input data. Results of this model provided a close fit to the behavioral data, suggesting a mechanism in the human visual system that approximates rational Bayesian inference to integrate position and orientation signals in dynamic form analysis.

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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 8%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 43 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 44%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 38%
Neuroscience 8 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 17%
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 03 March 2014.
All research outputs
#19,631,015
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,272
of 7,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,507
of 314,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#107
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 314,515 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.