Advertisement

Cognitive Computation

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 206–208 | Cite as

Non-Classical Connectionist Models of Visual Object Recognition

  • Tarik Hadzibeganovic
  • F. W. S. LimaEmail author
Article

Dear Editor,

It is with great interest that we read the article by Tay et al. on face recognition with quantum associative networks, which was recently published in Cognitive Computation [1]. In a series of computer simulations, the authors demonstrated how non-Turing-based quantum computing can be harnessed for viewpoint-invariant face recognition using Hebb-like storage of image-encoding Gabor wavelets implemented in a quantum-holographic procedure. The presented model was largely motivated by Hopfield’s neural network [2], which was then transformed into a quantum-holographic process in which the Hebbian memory was replaced by multiple self-interferences of quantum plane waves [3].

This transformation was achieved by means of a simple substitution (see Table  1for details) of Hopfield’s real-valued variables by the complex-valued variables changing as sinusoids (waves), while simultaneously preserving all input-to-output transformations in the model. By doing this, it becomes...

Keywords

Face Recognition Gabor Wavelet Associative Network Visual Object Recognition Neural Network Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Tay NW, Loo CK, Perus M. Face recognition with quantum associative networks using overcomplete Gabor wavelet. Cogn Comput. 2010;2:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hopfield JJ. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1982;79:2554–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perus M, Bischof H, Caulfield HJ, Loo CK. Quantum-implementable selective reconstruction of high-resolution images. Appl Opt. 2004;43:6134–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ezhov A, Ventura D. Quantum neural networks. In: Kasabov N, editors. Future directions for intelligent systems and information science. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag; 2000. p. 213–36.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou R. Quantum probability distribution network. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2007;4681:25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khrennikov A. Quantum-like model of processing of information in the brain based on classical electromagnetic field. Biosystems. 2011;105:250–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haikonen POA. Quasi-quantum computing in the brain? Cogn Comput. 2010;2:63–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Asano M, Ohya M, Tanaka Y, Basieva I, Khrennikov A. Quantum-like model of brain’s functioning: decision making from decoherence. J Theor Biol. 2011;281:56–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tarrataca L, Wichert A. Problem-solving and quantum computation. Cogn Comput. 2011;3:510–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Busemeyer JR, Pothos EM, Franco R, Trueblood JS. A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychol Rev. 2011;118:193–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aur D. From neuroelectrodynamics to thinking machines. Cogn Comput. doi: 10.1007/s12559-011-9106-3.
  12. 12.
    Bruza P, Kitto K, Nelson D, McEvoy C. Is there something quantum-like about the human mental lexicon? J Math Psychol. 2009;53:362–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busemeyer JR, Wang Z, Lambert-Mogiliansky A. Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. J Math Psychol. 2009;53:423–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perus M. Multi-level synergetic computation in brain. Nonlinear Phenom Complex Syst. 2001;4:157–93.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagan S, Hameroff S, Tuszynski J. Quantum computation in brain microtubules? Decoherence and biological feasibility. Phys Rev E. 2002;65:061901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hameroff S, Nip A, Porter M, Tuszynski J. Conduction pathways in microtubules, biological quantum computation, and consciousness. Biosystems. 2002;64:149–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tegmark M. The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes. Phys Rev E. 2000;61:4194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koch C, Hepp K. Quantum mechanics in the brain. Nature. 2006;440:611–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reimers JR, McKemmish LK, McKenzie RH, Mark AE, Hush NS. Weak, strong, and coherent regimes of Fröhlich condensation and their applications to terahertz medicine and quantum consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:4219–4224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perus M, Bischof H, Loo CK. Bio-computational model of object-recognition: quantum Hebbian processing with neurally shaped Gabor wavelets. Biosystems. 2005;82:116–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riesenhuber M, Poggio T. Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nat Neurosci. 1999;2:1019–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hubel D, Wiesel T. Receptive fields and functional architecture in two nonstriate visual areas (18 and 19) of the cat. J Neurophysiol. 1965;8:229–89.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Serre T, Wolf L, Bileschi S, Riesenhuber M, Poggio T. Robust object recognition with cortex-like mechanisms. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2007;9:411–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hung CP, Kreiman G, Poggio T, DiCarlo JJ. Fast readout of object identity from macaque inferior temporal cortex. Science. 2005;310:863–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perry C, Ziegler JC, Zorzi M. Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychol Rev. 2007;114:273–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seidenberg MS. Connectionist models of reading. In: Gaskell G, editors. The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. p. 235–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Dietrich Stauffer Laboratory for Computational Physics, Departamento de FísicaUniversidade Federal do PiauíTeresinaBrazil

Personalised recommendations