Literature DB >> 27142461

Searching for Category-Consistent Features: A Computational Approach to Understanding Visual Category Representation.

Chen-Ping Yu1, Justin T Maxfield2, Gregory J Zelinsky3.   

Abstract

This article introduces a generative model of category representation that uses computer vision methods to extract category-consistent features (CCFs) directly from images of category exemplars. The model was trained on 4,800 images of common objects, and CCFs were obtained for 68 categories spanning subordinate, basic, and superordinate levels in a category hierarchy. When participants searched for these same categories, targets cued at the subordinate level were preferentially fixated, but fixated targets were verified faster when they followed a basic-level cue. The subordinate-level advantage in guidance is explained by the number of target-category CCFs, a measure of category specificity that decreases with movement up the category hierarchy. The basic-level advantage in verification is explained by multiplying the number of CCFs by sibling distance, a measure of category distinctiveness. With this model, the visual representations of real-world object categories, each learned from the vast numbers of image exemplars accumulated throughout everyday experience, can finally be studied.
© The Author(s) 2016.

Entities:  

Keywords:  categorical features; categorical search; categorization; category hierarchies; category representation; generative models

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27142461      PMCID: PMC4899225          DOI: 10.1177/0956797616640237

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  25 in total

1.  Category learning with minimal prior knowledge.

Authors:  A S Kaplan; G L Murphy
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Diagnosticity and prototypicality in category learning: a comparison of inference learning and classification learning.

Authors:  Seth Chin-Parker; Brian H Ross
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries.

Authors:  A M LIBERMAN; K S HARRIS; H S HOFFMAN; B C GRIFFITH
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1957-11

4.  ALCOVE: an exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning.

Authors:  J K Kruschke
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  Online selection of discriminative tracking features.

Authors:  Robert T Collins; Yanxi Liu; Marius Leordeanu
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 6.226

6.  More target features in visual working memory leads to poorer search guidance: evidence from contralateral delay activity.

Authors:  Joseph Schmidt; Annmarie MacNamara; Greg Hajcak Proudfit; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-03-05       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage.

Authors:  G L Murphy; H H Brownell
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1985-01       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Eye can read your mind: decoding gaze fixations to reveal categorical search targets.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky; Yifan Peng; Dimitris Samaras
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.

Authors:  J G Snodgrass; M Vanderwart
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Learn       Date:  1980-03

10.  Searching Through the Hierarchy: How Level of Target Categorization Affects Visual Search.

Authors:  Justin T Maxfield; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2012-11-12
View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Template-to-distractor distinctiveness regulates visual search efficiency.

Authors:  Joy J Geng; Phillip Witkowski
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2019-01-11

2.  Target specificity improves search, but how universal is the benefit?

Authors:  Ashley M Ercolino; Pooja Patel; Corey Bohil; Mark B Neider; Joseph Schmidt
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Visual search for object categories is predicted by the representational architecture of high-level visual cortex.

Authors:  Michael A Cohen; George A Alvarez; Ken Nakayama; Talia Konkle
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Negative cues minimize visual search specificity effects.

Authors:  Ashley M Phelps; Robert G Alexander; Joseph Schmidt
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 1.984

5.  Categorical cuing: Object categories structure the acquisition of statistical regularities to guide visual search.

Authors:  Brett Bahle; Ariel M Kershner; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2021-04-08

6.  Object Categorization in Finer Levels Relies More on Higher Spatial Frequencies and Takes Longer.

Authors:  Matin N Ashtiani; Saeed R Kheradpisheh; Timothée Masquelier; Mohammad Ganjtabesh
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-07-25

7.  Real-world object categories and scene contexts conjointly structure statistical learning for the guidance of visual search.

Authors:  Ariel M Kershner; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 2.157

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.