Literature DB >> 19193251

Bayesian decision theory as a model of human visual perception: testing Bayesian transfer.

Laurence T Maloney1, Pascal Mamassian.   

Abstract

Bayesian decision theory (BDT) is a mathematical framework that allows the experimenter to model ideal performance in a wide variety of visuomotor tasks. The experimenter can use BDT to compute benchmarks for ideal performance in such tasks and compare human performance to ideal. Recently, researchers have asked whether BDT can also be treated as a process model of visuomotor processing. It is unclear what sorts of experiments are appropriate to testing such claims and whether such claims are even meaningful. Any such claim presupposes that observers' performance is close to ideal, and typical experimental tests involve comparison of human performance to ideal. We argue that this experimental criterion, while necessary, is weak. We illustrate how to achieve near-optimal performance in combining perceptual cues with a process model bearing little resemblance to BDT. We then propose experimental criteria termed transfer criteria that constitute more powerful tests of BDT as a model of perception and action. We describe how recent work in motor control can be viewed as tests of transfer properties of BDT. The transfer properties discussed here comprise the beginning of an operationalization (Bridgman, 1927) of what it means to claim that perception is or is not Bayesian inference (Knill & Richards, 1996). They are particularly relevant to research concerning natural scenes since they assess the ability of the organism to rapidly adapt to novel tasks in familiar environments or carry out familiar tasks in novel environments without learning.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19193251     DOI: 10.1017/S0952523808080905

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vis Neurosci        ISSN: 0952-5238            Impact factor:   3.241


  49 in total

1.  Energy-based stochastic control of neural mass models suggests time-varying effective connectivity in the resting state.

Authors:  Roberto C Sotero; Amir Shmuel
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 1.621

2.  Predictive cues reduce but do not eliminate intrinsic response bias.

Authors:  Mingjia Hu; Dobromir Rahnev
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2019-06-21

3.  Acquisition, representation, and transfer of models of visuo-motor error.

Authors:  Hang Zhang; Mila Kirstie C Kulsa; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Sensorimotor priors are effector dependent.

Authors:  Cong Yin; Huijun Wang; Kunlin Wei; Konrad P Körding
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  If perception is probabilistic, why does it not seem probabilistic?

Authors:  Ned Block
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  How Our Perception and Confidence Are Altered Using Decision Cues.

Authors:  Tiasha Saha Roy; Bapun Giri; Arpita Saha Chowdhury; Satyaki Mazumder; Koel Das
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 4.677

7.  Monkeys and humans take local uncertainty into account when localizing a change.

Authors:  Deepna Devkar; Anthony A Wright; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  1/f neural noise and electrophysiological indices of contextual prediction in aging.

Authors:  S Dave; T A Brothers; T Y Swaab
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 3.252

9.  The optimal time window of visual-auditory integration: a reaction time analysis.

Authors:  Hans Colonius; Adele Diederich
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2010-05-11

10.  Bayesian hierarchical grouping: Perceptual grouping as mixture estimation.

Authors:  Vicky Froyen; Jacob Feldman; Manish Singh
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2015-08-31       Impact factor: 8.934

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.