Export file:

Format

  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Visual encoding of partial unknown shape boundaries

1 Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California USA
2 The School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland New Zealand, California USA

Prior research has found that known shapes and letters can be recognized from a sparse sampling of dots that mark locations on their boundaries. Further, unknown shapes that are displayed only once can be identified by a matching protocol, and here also, above-chance performance requires very few boundary markers. The present work examines whether partial boundaries can be identified under similar low-information conditions. Several experiments were conducted that used a match-recognition task, with initial display of a target shape followed quickly by a comparison shape. The comparison shape was either derived from the target shape or was based on a different shape, and the respondent was asked for a matching judgment, i.e., did it “match” the target shape. Stimulus treatments included establishing how density affected the probability of a correct decision, followed by assessment of how much positioning of boundary dots affected this probability. Results indicate that correct judgments were possible when partial boundaries were displayed with a sparse sampling of dots. We argue for a process that quickly registers the locations of boundary markers and distills that information into a shape summary that can be used to identify the shape even when only a portion of the boundary is represented.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

Keywords shape recognition; shape encoding; boundary marking

Citation: Hannah Nordberg, Michael J Hautus, Ernest Greene. Visual encoding of partial unknown shape boundaries. AIMS Neuroscience, 2018, 5(2): 132-147. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2018.2.132

References

  • 1. Fuchs W (1938) Untersuchung uber dae Sehen der Hemianopiker und Hemiamblyopiker [English title: Completion phenomena in hemianopic vision], In: Ellis W.D. Translator, A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 352.
  • 2. Rosin P, Pantović J, Žunić J (2016) Measuring linearity of curves in 2D and 3D. Pattern Recognit 49: 65–78.    
  • 3. Jomma HD, Hussein AI (2016) Circle views signature: A novel shape representation for shape recognition and retrieval. Can J Electr Comput Eng 39: 274–282.    
  • 4. Žunić J, Žunić D (2016) Shape interpretation of second-order moment invariants. J Math Imaging Vis 56: 125–136.    
  • 5. Sharma S, Dubey S, Singh S, et al. (2015) Identity verification using shape and geometry of human hands. Expert Syst Appl Int J 42: 821–832.    
  • 6. Tang K, Song P, Chen X (2017) 3D object recognition in cluttered scenes with robust shape description and correspondence selection. IEEE Access 5: 1833–1845.    
  • 7. Sidram M, Bhajantri N (2015) An exploration with novel shape signature of GMSC distance function to track the object. Int J Imag Graph 15: 1550014.    
  • 8. Proenca H, Neves J, Barra S, et al. (2016) Joint head pose/soft label estimation for human recognition in-the-wild. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 38: 2444–2456.    
  • 9. Tsai CY, Liao HC, Feng YC (2016) A novel translation, rotation, and scale-invariant shape description method for real-time speed-limit sign recognition. Int Conf Adv Mater Sci Eng 2017: 486–488.
  • 10. Greene E (2007) Retinal encoding of ultrabrief shape recognition cues. PloS One 2: e871.    
  • 11. Greene E (2016) How do we know whether three dots form an equilateral triangle? JSM Brain Sci 1: 1002.
  • 12. Greene E (2016) Retinal encoding of shape boundaries. JSM Anat Physiol 1: 1002.
  • 13. Greene E, Hautus MJ (2017) Demonstrating invariant encoding of shapes using a similarity judgment protocol. AIMS Neurosci 4: 120–146.    
  • 14. Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley Press, 25: 1478–1481.
  • 15. Hautus MJ (1995) Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 27: 46–51.    
  • 16. Miller J (1996) The sampling distribution of d'. Percept Psychophys 58: 65–72.    
  • 17. Hautus M (1997) Calculating estimates of sensitivity from group data: Pooled versus averaged estimators. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 29: 556–562.    
  • 18. Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (2005) Detection Theory: A User's Guide, 2 Eds., New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • 19. Hautus MJ, Hout DV, Lee HS (2009) Variants of a not-A and 2AFC tests: Signal detection theory models. Food Qual Prefer 20: 222–229.    
  • 20. Hautus J (2012) SDT Assistant (version 1.0) [Software]. Available from: http://hautus.org.
  • 21. Greene E (2007) Recognition of objects displayed with incomplete sets of discrete boundary dots. Percept Mot Skills 104: 1043–1059.    
  • 22. Sceniak MP, Hawken JJ, Shapley R (2001) Visual spatial characterization of macaque V1 neurons. J Neurophysiol 85: 1873–1887.    
  • 23. Greene E (2008) Additional evidence that contour attributes are not essential cues for object recognition. Behav Brain Funct 4: e26.    
  • 24. Greene E, Ogden R (2012) Evaluating the contribution of shape attributes to recognition using the minimal transient discrete cue protocol. Behav Brain Funct 8: e53.    
  • 25. Fukushima K (1980) Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position. Biol Cybern 36: 193–202.    
  • 26. Rolls E, Cowey A, Bruce V (1992) Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying face processing within and beyond the temporal cortical visual areas. Phil Trans R Soc B 335: 11–21.    
  • 27. Wallis G, Rolls E (1997) Invariant face and object recognition in the visual system. Prog Neurobiol 51: 167–194.    
  • 28. Riesenhuber M, Poggio T (2000) Models of object recognition. Nat Neurosci 3: 1199–1204.    
  • 29. Suzuki N, Hashimoto N, Kashimori Y, et al. (2004) A neural model of predictive recognition in form pathway of visual cortex. Bio Syst 76: 33–42.
  • 30. Pinto N, Cox D, Dicarlo J (2008) Why is real-world visual object recognition hard? PLoS Comput Biol 4: e27.    
  • 31. Rodríguez-Sánchez A, Tsotsos J (2012) The roles of endstopped and curvature tuned computations in a hierarchical representation of 2D shape. PLoS One 7: e42058.    
  • 32. Hopfield J (1995) Pattern recognition computation using action potential timing for stimulus representation. Nature 376: 33–36.    
  • 33. Thorpe S, Fize D, Marlot C (1996) Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381: 520–522.    
  • 34. Thorpe S, Delorme A, VanRullen R (2001) Spike-based strategies for rapid processing. Neural Netw 14: 715–725.    
  • 35. VanRullen R, Thorpe S (2001) Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Ultra-rapid visual categorisation of natural and artifactual objects. Perception 30: 655–668.
  • 36. VanRullen R, Thorpe S (2002) Surfing a spike wave down the ventral stream. Vision Res 42: 2593–2615.    
  • 37. Greene E, Patel Y (2018) Scan transcription of two-dimensional shapes as an alternative neuromorphic concept. Trends Artif Intell 1: 27–33.

 

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved