Advertisement

Visual noise consisting of X-junctions has only a minimal adverse effect on object recognition

  • Eshed Margalit
  • Sarah B. Herald
  • Emily X. Meschke
  • Isabel Irawan
  • Rafael Maarek
  • Irving BiedermanEmail author
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

In 1968, Guzman showed that the myriad of surfaces composing a highly complex and novel assemblage of volumes can readily be assigned to their appropriate volumes in terms of the constraints offered by the vertices of coterminating edges. Of particular importance was the L-vertex, produced by the cotermination of two contours, which provides strong evidence for the termination of a 2-D surface. An X-junction, formed by the crossing of two contours without a change of direction at the crossing, played no role in the segmentation of a scene. If the potency of noise elements to affect recognition performance reflects their relevancy to the segmentation of scenes, as was suggested by Guzman, gaps in an object’s contours bounded by irrelevant X-junctions would be expected to have little or no adverse effect on shape-based object recognition, whereas gaps bounded by L-junctions would be expected to have a strong deleterious effect when they disrupt the smooth continuation of contours. Guzman’s roles for the various vertices and junctions have never been put to systematic test with respect to human object recognition. By adding identical noise contours to line drawings of objects that produced either L-vertices or X-junctions, these shape features could be compared with respect to their disruption of object recognition. Guzman’s insights that irrelevant L-vertices should be highly disruptive and irrelevant X-vertices would have only a minimal deleterious effect were confirmed.

Keywords

Perceptual organization Shape perception Vertices Nonaccidental properties 

Notes

Open Practice Statement

The data have been deposited in the Open Science Framework, osf.io.

Funding

This research was funded by the Dornsife Research Fund.

Supplementary material

13414_2019_1840_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Clowes, M. (1971). On seeing things. Artificial Intelligence 2, 79–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Geirhos, R., Rubisch, P., Michaelis, C., Bethge, M., Wichmann, F. A., & Brendel, W. (2019). ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustness. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12231
  5. Guzman, A, (1968). Computer recognition of three-dimensional objects in a visual scene (Ph.D. dissertation). Dept. of Electrical Engineering, MIT.Google Scholar
  6. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Huffman, D. (1971). Impossible objects as nonsense sentences. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 6. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. James, T. W., Culham, J., Humphrey, K. G., Milner, D. A., & Goodale, M. A. (2003). Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object-directed grasping: An fMRI study. Brain, 126, 2463–2475. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awg248 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36(ECVP Abstract Suppl.), 14Google Scholar
  11. Lescroart, M. D., & Biederman, I. (2012). Cortical representation of medial axis structure. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 629–637. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: Using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1171. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Lowe, D. G. (1985). Perceptual organization and visual recognition. Boston, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lüdecke, D. (2018). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot
  15. Malach, R., Reppas, J. B., Benson, R. R., Kwong, K. K., Jiang, H., Kennedy, W. A., & Tootell, R. B. (1995). Object-related activity revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging in human occipital cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 92, 8135–8139. doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.18.8135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Margalit, E., Biederman, I., Tjan, B. S., & Shah, M. P. (2017). What is actually affected by the scrambling of objects when localizing the lateral occipital complex? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 29, 1595–1604. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/10.1162/jocn_a_01144 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Margalit, E., Shah, M. P., Tjan, B. S., Biederman, I., Keller, B., & Brenner, R. (2016). The Lateral Occipital Complex shows no net response to object familiarity. Journal of Vision, 78, 2298–2306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/16.11.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
  19. R Studio Team. (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.rstudio.com/ Google Scholar
  20. Vessel, E., Biederman, I., Subramaniam, S., & Greene, M. R. (2016). Effective signaling of surface boundaries by L-vertices reflect the consistency of their contrast in natural images. Journal of Vision, 16(9), 15:1–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/16.9.15 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Waltz, D. (1975). Understanding line drawings of scenes with shadows. In P. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 19–91). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/41058 Google Scholar
  22. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wickham, H. (2017). tidyverse: Easily install and load the “Tidyverse” (R package version 1.2.1). Retrieved from https://www.tidyverse.org/

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eshed Margalit
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sarah B. Herald
    • 1
    • 3
  • Emily X. Meschke
    • 1
  • Isabel Irawan
    • 1
  • Rafael Maarek
    • 4
  • Irving Biederman
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Program in NeuroscienceUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Neuroscience Graduate ProgramStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations