Cognitive Processing

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 13–28 | Cite as

A biologically based model for recognition of 2-D occluded patterns

  • Mohammad Saifullah
  • Christian Balkenius
  • Arne Jönsson
Research Report

Abstract

In this work, we present a biologically inspired model for recognition of occluded patterns. The general architecture of the model is based on the two visual information processing pathways of the human visual system, i.e. the ventral and the dorsal pathways. The proposed hierarchically structured model consists of three parallel processing channels. The main channel learns invariant representations of the input patterns and is responsible for pattern recognition task. But, it is limited to process one pattern at a time. The direct channel represents the biologically based direct connection from the lower to the higher processing level in the human visual cortex. It computes rapid top-down pattern-specific cues to modulate processing in the other two channels. The spatial channel mimics the dorsal pathway of the visual cortex. It generates a combined saliency map of the input patterns and, later, segments the part of the map representing the occluded pattern. This segmentation process is based on our hypothesis that the dorsal pathway, in addition to encoding spatial properties, encodes the shape representations of the patterns as well. The lateral interaction between the main and the spatial channels at appropriate processing levels and top-down, pattern-specific modulation of the these two channels by the direct channel strengthen the locations and features representing the occluded pattern. Consequently, occluded patterns become focus of attention in the ventral channel and also the pattern selected for further processing along this channel for final recognition.

Keywords

Vision Occluded patterns Neural network model Interactive process Attention Segmentation and recognition 

References

  1. Aisa B, Mingus B, O’Reilly R (2008) The emergent neural modeling system. Neural Netw 21(8):1146–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajcsy R, Solina F, Gupta A (1990) Segmentation versus object representation-are they separable? In: Jain RC, Jain A (eds) Analysis and interpretation of range images. Springer series in perception engineering. Springer, New York, pp. 207–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3360-2_4
  3. Bar M (2003) A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. J Cogn Neurosci 15:600–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biederman I (1972) Perceiving real-world scenes. Science 177(4043):77–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biederman I (1987) Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol Rev 94(2):115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borenstein E, Ullman S (2002) Class-specific, top-down segmentation. In: Heyden A, Sparr G, Nielsen M, Johansen P (eds) Computer vision—ECCV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2351. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 109–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-47967-8_8
  7. Borenstein E, Ullman S (2008) Combined top-down/bottom-up segmentation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 30(12):2109–2125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Du Buf J, Kardan M, Spann M (1990) Texture feature performance for image segmentation. Pattern Recogn 23(3):291–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferrari V, Tuytelaars T, Van Gool L (2004) Simultaneous object recognition and segmentation by image exploration. Computer Vision-ECCV 2004:40–54Google Scholar
  10. Kelly F, Grossberg S (2000) Neural dynamics of 3-D surface perception: figure-ground separation and lightness perception. Atten Percept Psychophys 62(8):1596–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kosslyn SM (1987) Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: a computational approach. Psychol Rev 94(2):148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehky SR, Sereno AB (2007) Comparison of shape encoding in primate dorsal and ventral visual pathways. J Neurophysiol 97(1):307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leibe B, Leonardis A, Schiele B (2008) Robust object detection with interleaved categorization and segmentation. Int J Comput Vision 77(1–3):259–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marr D (1976) Early processing of visual information. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 275(942):483–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McClelland JL (1993) Toward a theory of information processing in graded, random, and interactive networks. In: Meyer DE, Kornblum S (eds) Attention and performance XIV: synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence and cognitive neuroscience. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 655–688Google Scholar
  16. Montanari U (1971) On the optimal detection of curves in noisy pictures. Commun ACM 14(5):335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mozer MC, Zemel RS, Behrmann M, Williams CKI (1992) Learning to segment images using dynamic feature binding. Neural Comput 4(5):650–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Needham A (2001) Object recognition and object segregation in 4.5-month-old infants. J Exp Child Psychol 78(1):3–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neisser U (1967) Cognitive psychology. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Reilly RC (1996) Biologically plausible error-driven learning using local activation differences: the generalized recirculation algorithm. Neural Comput 8(5):895–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Reilly RC, Munakata Y (2000) Computational explorations in cognitive neuroscience: understanding the mind by simulating the brain. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer S, Rock I (1994) Rethinking perceptual organization: the role of uniform connectedness. Psychon Bull Rev 1(1):29–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peterson MA (1994) Object recognition processes can and do operate before figure-ground organization. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 3(4):105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1991) The initial identification of figure-ground relationships: contributions from shape recognition processes. Bull Psychon Soc 29(3):199–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1993) Shape recognition inputs to figure-ground organization in three-dimensional grounds. Cogn Psychol 25(3):383–429 Google Scholar
  26. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1994a) Must figure-ground organization precede object recognition? An assumption in peril. Psychol Sci 5(5):253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peterson MA, Gibson BS (1994b) Object recognition contributions to figure-ground organization: operations on outlines and subjective contours. Atten Percept Psychophys 56(5):551–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Potter MC (1975) Meaning in visual search. Science 187(4180):565–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prinzmetal W, Millis-Wright M (1984) Cognitive and linguistic factors affect visual feature integration. Cogn Psychol 16(3):305–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rao RP, Ballard DH (1999) Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive field effects. Nat Neurosci 2:79–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rao RP, Ballard DH (2004) Probabilistic models of attention based on iconic representations and predictive coding. In: Itti L (ed) Neurobiology of attention. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 553–561Google Scholar
  32. Reicher GM (1969) Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material. J Exp Psychol 81(2):275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rock I, Campbell B (1975) An introduction to perception. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubin E (1958) Figure and ground. In: Beardslee D, Wertheimer M (eds and trans) Readings in perception. Van Nostrand, Princeton, pp 35–101 (Original work published 1915)Google Scholar
  35. Rumelhart DE (1989) The architecture of mind: a connectionist approach. In: Posner MI (ed) Foundations of cognitive science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 133–159. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=102953.102957
  36. Saifullah M, Kovordányi R (2011) Emergence of attention focus in a biologically-based bidirectionally-connected hierarchical network. In: Dobnikar A, Lotric U, Ster B (eds) Adaptive and natural computing algorithms. LNCS, vol 6593. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 200–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20282-7_21
  37. Sereno A, Maunsell J (1987) Shape selectivity in primate lateral intraparietal cortex. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 12:388–391Google Scholar
  38. Spratling MW (2008) Reconciling predictive coding and biased competition models of cortical function. Front Comput Neurosci 2:4PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thorpe S, Fize D, Marlot C et al (1996) Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381(6582):520–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tu Z, Chen X, Yuille AL, Zhu SC (2005) Image parsing: unifying segmentation, detection, and recognition. Int J Comput Vision 63(2):113–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ullman S (1989) Aligning pictorial descriptions: an approach to object recognition. Cognition 32(3):193–254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vecera SP, Farah MJ (1997) Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? Atten Percept Psychophys 59(8):1280–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vecera SP, O’Reilly RC (1998) Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: an interactive account. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24(2):441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weeks AR, Hague GE (1997) Color segmentation in the HSI color space using the K-means algorithm. Proc SPIE 3026:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wertheimer M (1958) Principles of perceptual organization. In: Beardslee D, Wertheimer M (eds and trans) Readings in perception. Van Nostrand, Princeton, pp 115–135 (Original work published in 1923)Google Scholar
  46. Wheeler DD (1970) Processes in word recognition. Cogn Psychol 1(1):59–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Saifullah
    • 1
  • Christian Balkenius
    • 2
  • Arne Jönsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Lund University Cognitive ScienceLundSweden

Personalised recommendations