Computational Models of Object Recognition in Cortex: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how biological visual systems perform object recognition is one of the ultimate goals in computational neuroscience. Among the biological models of recognition the main distinctions are between feedforward and feedback and between object-centered and view-centered. From a computational viewpoint the different recognition tasks --- for instance categorization and identification --- are very similar, representing different trade-offs between specificity and invariance. Thus the different tasks do not strictly require different classes of models. The focus of the review is on feedforward, view-based models that are supported by psychophysical and physiological data. Copyright c # Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000 This report describes research done within the Center for Biological and Computational Learning in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This research is sponsored by a grant from Office of Naval Research under contract No. N00014-93-1-3085, Office of Naval Research under contract No. N00014-95-1-0600, National Science Foundation under contract No. IIS-9800032, and National Science Foundation under contract No. DMS-9872936. Additional support is provided by: AT&T, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Eastman Kodak Company, DaimlerChrysler Corp., Digital Equipment Corporation, Honda R&D Co., Ltd., NEC Fund, Nippon Telegraph & Telephone, and Siemens Corporate Research, Inc. M.R. is supported by a Merck/MIT Fellowship in Bioinformatics. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".