Leveraging Saccades to Learn Smooth Pursuit: A Self-Organizing Motion Tracking Model Using Restricted Boltzmann Machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a biologically-plausible model to explain the emergence of motion tracking behaviour in early development using unsupervised learning. The model's training is biased by a concept called retinal constancy, which measures how similar visual contents are between successive frames. This biasing is similar to a reward in reinforcement learning, but is less explicit, as it modulates the model's learning rate instead of being a learning signal itself. The model is a two-layer deep network. The first layer learns to encode visual motion, and the second layer learns to relate that motion to gaze movements, which it perceives and creates through bi-directional nodes. By randomly generating gaze movements to traverse the local visual space, desirable correlations are developed between visual motion and the appropriate gaze to nullify that motion such that maximal retinal constancy is achieved. Biologically, this is similar to using saccades to look around and learning from moments where a target and the saccade move together such that the image stays the same on the retina, and developing smooth pursuit behaviour to perform this action in the future. Restricted Boltzmann machines are used to implement this model because they can form a deep belief network, perform online learning, and act generatively. These properties all have biological equivalents and coincide with the biological plausibility of using saccades as leverage to learn smooth pursuit. This method is unique because it uses general machine learning algorithms, and their inherent generative properties, to learn from real-world data. It also implements a biological theory, uses motion instead of recognition via local searches, without temporal filtering, and learns in a fully unsupervised manner. Its tracking performance after being trained on real-world images with simulated motion is compared to its tracking performance after being trained on natural video. Results show that this model is able to successfully follow targets in natural video, despite partial occlusions, scale changes, and nonlinear motion.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".