Literature DB >> 23267067

Learning to detect and combine the features of an object.

Jordan W Suchow1, Denis G Pelli.   

Abstract

To recognize an object, it is widely supposed that we first detect and then combine its features. Familiar objects are recognized effortlessly, but unfamiliar objects--like new faces or foreign-language letters--are hard to distinguish and must be learned through practice. Here, we describe a method that separates detection and combination and reveals how each improves as the observer learns. We dissociate the steps by two independent manipulations: For each step, we do or do not provide a bionic crutch that performs it optimally. Thus, the two steps may be performed solely by the human, solely by the crutches, or cooperatively, when the human takes one step and a crutch takes the other. The crutches reveal a double dissociation between detecting and combining. Relative to the two-step ideal, the human observer's overall efficiency for unconstrained identification equals the product of the efficiencies with which the human performs the steps separately. The two-step strategy is inefficient: Constraining the ideal to take two steps roughly halves its identification efficiency. In contrast, we find that humans constrained to take two steps perform just as well as when unconstrained, which suggests that they normally take two steps. Measuring threshold contrast (the faintness of a barely identifiable letter) as it improves with practice, we find that detection is inefficient and learned slowly. Combining is learned at a rate that is 4× higher and, after 1,000 trials, 7× more efficient. This difference explains much of the diversity of rates reported in perceptual learning studies, including effects of complexity and familiarity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23267067      PMCID: PMC3545750          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1218438110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  33 in total

1.  Mechanisms of perceptual learning.

Authors:  B A Dosher; Z L Lu
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Perceptual learning for a pattern discrimination task.

Authors:  I Fine; R A Jacobs
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Process decomposition from double dissociation of subprocesses.

Authors:  Saul Sternberg
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.027

4.  Suppressive and facilitatory spatial interactions in peripheral vision: peripheral crowding is neither size invariant nor simple contrast masking.

Authors:  Dennis M Levi; Srividhya Hariharan; Stanley A Klein
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 5.  Comparing perceptual learning tasks: a review.

Authors:  Ione Fine; Robert A Jacobs
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Learning strengthens the response of primary visual cortex to simple patterns.

Authors:  Christopher S Furmanski; Denis Schluppeck; Stephen A Engel
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 10.834

7.  Perceptual learning retunes the perceptual template in foveal orientation identification.

Authors:  Zhong-Lin Lu; Barbara A Dosher
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2004-02-06       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Probability summation over time.

Authors:  A B Watson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 9.  The phenomenon of task-irrelevant perceptual learning.

Authors:  Aaron R Seitz; Takeo Watanabe
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition.

Authors:  Denis G Pelli; Bart Farell; Deborah C Moore
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-06-12       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  7 in total

1.  Rapid and long-lasting reduction of crowding through training.

Authors:  Amit Yashar; Jiageng Chen; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Object recognition: visual crowding from a distance.

Authors:  Denis G Pelli; Patrick Cavanagh
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-06-03       Impact factor: 10.834

3.  Common constraints limit Korean and English character recognition in peripheral vision.

Authors:  Yingchen He; MiYoung Kwon; Gordon E Legge
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Rapid and long-lasting learning of feature binding.

Authors:  Amit Yashar; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2016-06-09

Review 5.  Sustained invisibility through crowding and continuous flash suppression: a comparative review.

Authors:  Nathan Faivre; Vincent Berthet; Sid Kouider
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-05-27

6.  Seeing and hearing a word: combining eye and ear is more efficient than combining the parts of a word.

Authors:  Matthieu Dubois; David Poeppel; Denis G Pelli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Topological difference between target and flankers alleviates crowding effect.

Authors:  Huanjun Xi; Ruijie Wu; Bo Wang; Lin Chen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 2.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.