Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 624–629 | Cite as

Subjective randomness and natural scene statistics

  • Anne S. Hsu
  • Thomas L. Griffiths
  • Ethan Schreiber
Brief Reports

Abstract

Accounts of subjective randomness suggest that people consider a stimulus random when they cannot detect any regularities characterizing the structure of that stimulus. We explored the possibility that the regularities people detect are shaped by the statistics of their natural environment. We did this by testing the hypothesis that people’s perception of randomness in two-dimensional binary arrays (images with two levels of intensity) is inversely related to the probability with which the array’s pattern would be encountered in nature. We estimated natural scene probabilities for small binary arrays by tabulating the frequencies with which each pattern of cell values appears. We then conducted an experiment in which we collected human randomness judgments. The results show an inverse relationship between people’s perceived randomness of an array pattern and the probability of the pattern appearing in nature.

Keywords

Natural Image Natural Scene White Pixel Cognitive Science Society Binary Array 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Doi, E., Inui, T., Lee, T. W., Wachtler, T., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2003). Spatiochromatic receptive field properties derived from informationtheoretic analyses of cone mosaic responses to natural scenes. Neural Computation, 15, 397–417.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Falk, R., & Konold, C. (1997). Making sense of randomness: Implicit encoding as a basis for judgement. Psychological Review, 104,301–3188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Feldman, J. (1996). Regularity vs genericity in the perception of collinearity. Perception, 25, 335–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Feldman, J. (1997). Curvilinearity, covariance, and regularity in perceptual groups. Vision Research, 37, 2835–2848.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman, W., Pasztor, E., & Carmichael, O. (2000). Learning lowlevel vision. International Journal of Computer Vision, 40, 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gimel’farb, G. (1996). Texture modeling by multiple pairwise pixel interactions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 18, 1110–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2001). Randomness and coincidences: Reconciling intuition and probability theory. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 370–375). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2003). Probability, algorithmic complexity, and subjective randomness. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 480–485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths, T. L., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2004). From algorithmic to subjective randomness. In S. Thrun, L. K. Saul, & B. Schölkopf (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 16, pp. 953–960). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Olshausen, B. A., & Field, D. J. (2000). Vision and the coding of natural images. American Scientist, 88, 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Roth, S., & Black, M. J. (2005). Fields of experts: A framework for learning image priors. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Computer Science Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (Vol. 2, pp. 860–867). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  12. Schreiber, E., & Griffiths, T. L. (2007). Subjective randomness and natural scene statistics. In D. S. McNamara & J. G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1449–1454). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Simoncelli, E. P., & Olshausen, B. A. (2001). Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 1193–1216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhu, S., Wu, Y., & Mumford, D. (1998). Filters, random fields and maximum entropy (frame): Towards a unified theory for texture modeling. International Journal of Computer Vision, 27, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne S. Hsu
    • 1
  • Thomas L. Griffiths
    • 2
  • Ethan Schreiber
    • 3
  1. 1.University College LondonLondonEngland
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  3. 3.University of CaliforniaLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations