Advertisement

Rapid Categorization of Extrafoveal Natural Images: Implications for Biological Models

  • Michèle Fabre-Thorpe
  • Denis Fize
  • Ghislaine Richard
  • Simon Thorpe

Abstract

Despite intensive research over the past 30 years, the performance of artificial visual systems in object recognition is still poor when compared with humans. For humans, the identification of objects in natural scenes appears both effortless and fast. Just how fast was a question we addressed recently in a study that associated behavioral measurements and event related potential (ERP) recordings1. The task used was a go/no-go visual categorization task in which human subjects had to respond when a photograph of a natural scene contained an animal. The photographs had never been seen before and were flashed centrally on a screen for only 20 ms. Humans scored 94% correct, moreover, their ERPs recorded on animal and non-animal trials showed a clear difference on all frontal electrodes that started around 150 ms after stimuli onset. Thus, it appears that the human visual system can process such previously unseen complex natural scenes in less than 150 ms, a level of performance well above that of any currently available artificial system. This is despite the fact that the neurons that constitute the human visual system are relatively slow — firing rates rarely exceed 200 Hz, a value far slower than the transistors of a modern microprocessor, which can change state over a million times faster.

Keywords

Object Recognition Human Visual System Natural Scene Perceptual Load Difference Curve 
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. 1.
    SJ. Thorpe, D. Fize, and C. Marlot, Speed of processing in the human visual system. Nature 381: 520–522 (1996).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M.D. Rugg, M.C. Doyle, and T. Wells, Word and nonword repetition within-modality and across-modality. An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7: 209–227 (1995). 3.1. Biederman and E.E. Cooper, Object recognition and laterality: null effects. Neuropsychologia 29: 685-694 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    M. Vitkovitch and G. Underwood, Visual field differences in an object-recognition task. Brain and Cognition 19: 195–207 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 5.
    C.J. Downing, Expectancy and visuo-spatial attention: Effects on perceptual quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 13: 228–241 (1988).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    N. Lavie and Y. Tsal, Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics 56: 183–197 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    C.W. Eriksen and Y.Y. Yeh, Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 11: 583–597 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    J.M. Henderson, K.K. McClure, S. Pierce, and G. Schrock, Object identification without foveal vision: Evidence from an artificial scotoma paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics 59: 323–346 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 9.
    T.C. Handy, A. Kingstone, and G.R. Mangun, Spatial distribution of visual attention: Perceptual sensitivity and response latency. Perception and Psychophysics 58: 613–627 (1996).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 10.
    SJ. Thorpe and M. Imbert, Biological constraints on connectionist models., in: Connectionism in Perspective., R. Pfeifer, Z. Schreter, F. Fogelman-Soulié, & L. Steels, eds., Elsevier: Amsterdam. 63–92. (1989).Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    B.A. Olshausen, C.H. Anderson, and D.C. Van Essen, A multiscale dynamic routing circuit for forming size-and position-invariant object representations. Journal of Computational Neuroscience 2: 45–62 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michèle Fabre-Thorpe
    • 1
  • Denis Fize
    • 1
  • Ghislaine Richard
    • 1
  • Simon Thorpe
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculté de Médecine de RangueilCentre de Recherche Cerveau et Cognition (UMR 5549)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations