MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307825689 · doi:10.1101/2022.10.28.514169

Modelling the role of contour integration in visual inference

2022· preprint· en· W4307825689 on OpenAlexaff
Salman Khan, Alexander Wong, Bryan Tripp

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTask (project management)Visual cortexArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Visual perceptionPerceptionInferenceVisual processingComputer visionPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Under difficult viewing conditions, the brain’s visual system uses a variety of recurrent modulatory mechanisms to augment feed-forward processing. One resulting phenomenon is contour integration, which occurs in the primary visual (V1) cortex and strengthens neural responses to edges if they belong to a larger smooth contour. Computational models have contributed to an understanding of the circuit mechanisms of contour integration, but less is known about its role in visual perception. To address this gap, we embedded a biologically grounded model of contour integration in a task-driven artificial neural network, and trained it using a gradient-descent variant. We used this model to explore how brain-like contour integration may be optimized for high-level visual objectives as well as its potential roles in perception. When the model was trained to detect contours in a background of random edges, a task commonly used to examine contour integration in the brain, it closely mirrored the brain in terms of behavior, neural responses, and lateral connection patterns. When trained on natural images, the model enhanced weaker contours and distinguished whether two points lay on the same vs. different contours. The model learnt robust features that generalized well to out-of-training-distribution stimuli. Surprisingly, and in contrast with the synthetic task, a parameter-matched control network without recurrence performed the same or better than the model on the natural-image tasks. Thus a contour integration mechanism is not essential to perform these more naturalistic contour-related tasks. Finally, the best performance in all tasks was achieved by a modified contour integration model that did not distinguish between excitatory and inhibitory neurons. Author summary Deep networks are machine-learning systems that consist of interconnected neuron-like elements. More than other kinds of artificial system, they rival human information processing in a variety of tasks. These structural and functional parallels have raised interest in using deep networks as simplified models of the brain, to better understand of brain function. For example, incorporating additional biological phenomena into deep networks may help to clarify how they affect brain function. In this direction, we adapted a deep network to incorporate a model of visual contour integration, a process in the brain that makes contours appear more visually prominent. We found that suitable training led this model to behave much like the corresponding brain circuits. We then investigated potential roles of the contour integration mechanism in processing of natural images, an important question that has been difficult to answer. The results were not straightforward. For example, the contour integration mechanism actually impaired the network’s ability to tell whether two points lay on the same contour or not, but improved the network’s ability to generalize this skill to a different group of images. Overall, this approach has raised more sophisticated questions about the role of contour integration in natural vision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→