Constrained sampling from deep generative image models reveals mechanisms of human target detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first steps of visual processing are often described as a bank of oriented filters followed by divisive normalization. This approach has been tremendously successful at predicting contrast thresholds in simple visual displays. However, it is unclear to what extent this kind of architecture also supports processing in more complex visual tasks performed in naturally looking images. We used a deep generative image model to embed arc segments with different curvatures in naturalistic images. These images contain the target as part of the image scene, resulting in considerable appearance variation of target as well as background. Three observers localized arc targets in these images, achieving an accuracy of 74.7% correct responses on average. Data were fit by several biologically inspired models, 4 standard deep convolutional neural networks (CNN) from the computer vision literature, and by a 5-layer CNN specifically trained for this task. Four models were particularly good at predicting observer responses, (i) a bank of oriented filters, similar to complex cells in primate area V1, (ii) a bank of oriented filters followed by tuned gain control, incorporating knowledge about cortical surround interactions, (iii) a bank of oriented filters followed by local normalization, (iv) the 5-layer specifically trained CNN. A control experiment with optimized stimuli based on these four models showed that the observers’ data were best explained by model (ii) with tuned gain control. These data suggest that standard models of early vision provide good descriptions of performance in much more complex tasks than what they were designed for, while general purpose non-linear models such as convolutional neural networks do not.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".