 |
| Volume 6, Number 4, Introduction ii, Page ii |
doi:10.1167/6.4.ii |
http://journalofvision.org/6/4/ii/ |
ISSN 1534-7362 |
Special Issue Introduction
Finding visual features: Using stochastic stimuli to discover internal representations
Jason M. Gold |
Departments of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA |
|
Richard Shiffrin |
Departments of Psychology and Cognitive Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA |
|
James Elder |
Center for Vision Research & Departments of Psychology and Computer Science, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada |
|
Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the
development and application of stochastic techniques designed to infer the
internal representations (often termed ‘features’) used by sensory
and cognitive systems. In both cognitive and vision science, internal and
external noise have historically been recognized as factors that limit
performance and hinder attempts to model sensory, cognitive, and decision
systems. In recent years, it has become clear that it is possible to treat
externally identifiable noise as a tool to provide insights into sensory,
cognitive, and decision processes.
On the cognitive side, probabilistic techniques for
inferring underlying semantic features of textual databases have been developed
within a generative framework. (e.g., the Topics model (Griffiths &
Steyvers, 2004), LSA (Landauer &
Dumais, 1997)). Decision scientists have
also been testing mathematical models of how observers make categorical
decisions about noisy stimuli (e.g., Ashby & Gott, 1988; Green & Swets, 1966; Nosofsky, 1986).
In the sensory sciences, a good example is the use of
performance analyses carried out under varying amounts of external noise, used
to infer system architecture and decision processes (e.g., external noise
masking (Lu & Dosher, 1999; Pelli, 1990) and deterministic vs random internal error
sources (Burgess & Colborne, 1988; Green,
1964)). Another example in the sensory
sciences is the ‘response classification’ technique, in which
external noise is added to stimuli on each trial of an experiment and then
analyzed through correlations with performance to induce features used to
perform visual classifications (Ahumada & Lovell, 1971; Eckstein & Ahumada, 2002).
Neuroscientists have developed related techniques for
inducing features by correlating both unstructured are naturalistic noisy
stimuli with neural responses (‘reverse correlation’) (e.g., Hansen
et al., 2004;
Rieke et al., 1997; Ringach
et al., 1997; Theunissen et al., 2001).
These techniques have been based in good part on
powerful computational algorithms developed by engineers, computer scientists,
mathematicians, and statisticians to extract information from extremely large
amounts of data (Hastie et al., 2001). Many of
these developments have proceeded hand in hand with ‘ideal observer’
analyses that establish the limits of performance defined by external noise when
internal noise is assumed absent (Geisler, 2004; Green & Swets, 1966).
In December, 2004, a Neural Information Processing
Society (NIPS) workshop brought together researchers from these different fields
in an effort to share and discuss these different approaches to discovering the
internal representations underlying perceptual and cognitive judgments. The
purpose of this special issue of the Journal of Vision is to present a sample of
this and related work. It is our hope that this issue of Journal of Vision will
encourage and facilitate continued interdisciplinary collaboration in this
area.
Ahumada, A., & Lovell, J.
(1971). Stimulus features in signal detection.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
49, 1751-1756.
Ashby, F. G., & Gott, R. E.
(1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional
stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 33-53. [ PubMed]
Burgess, A. E., & Colborne,
B. (1988). Visual signal detection. Iv. Observer inconsistency.
Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 5(4), 617-627. [ PubMed]
Eckstein, M. P., & Ahumada,
A. J., Jr. (2002). Classification images: A tool to analyze visual strategies.
Journal of Vision, 2(1), i-i,
http://journalofvision.org/2/1/i, doi:10.1167/2/1/i/. [ Article]
Geisler, W. S. (2004). Ideal
observer analysis. In J. S. Werner & L. M. Chalupa (Eds.),
The visual neurosciences (pp. 2 v.
(various pagings)). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Green, D. M. (1964).
Consistency of auditory detection judgments.
Psychological Review, 71(5), 392-407.
[ PubMed]
Green, D. M., & Swets, J.
A. (1966). Signal detection theory and
psychophysics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Griffiths, T. L., &
Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics.
Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of
America A, 101b (Suppl. 1), 5228-5235. [ PubMed][ Article]
Hansen, K. A., David, S. V.,
& Gallant, J. L. (2004). Parametric reverse correlation reveals spatial
linearity of retinotopic human v1 bold response.
Neuroimage, 23(1), 233-241. [ PubMed]
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., &
Friedman, J. H. (2001). The elements of
statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction: With 200
full-color illustrations. New York: Springer.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais,
S. T. (1997). A solution to plato's problem: Thelatent semantic analysis theory
of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge.
Psychological Review
104(2), 211-240.
Lu, Z. L., & Dosher, B. A.
(1999). Characterizing human perceptual inefficiencies with equivalent internal
noise. Journal of the Optical Society of
America A: Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 16(3), 764-778. [ PubMed]
Nosofsky, R. M. (1986).
Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
115(1), 39-61. [ PubMed]
Pelli, D. G. (1990). The quantum
efficiency of vision. In C. Blakemore (Ed.),
Vision: Coding and efficiency (pp.
3-24). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rieke, F., Warland, D., de Ruyter
van Stevenick, R., & Bialek, W. (1997).
Spikes: Exploring the neural code.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ringach, D. L., Sapiro, G.,
& Shapley, R. (1997). A subspace reverse-correlation technique for the study
of visual neurons. Vision Research,
37(17), 2455-2464. [ PubMed]
Theunissen, F. E., David, S.
V., Singh, N. C., Hsu, A., Vinje, W. E., & Gallant, J. L. (2001). Estimating
spatio-temporal receptive fields of auditory and visual neurons from their
responses to natural stimuli. Network,
12(3), 289-316. [ PubMed]
|
|