Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34905052›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

Recurrent processing improves occluded object recognition and gives rise to perceptual hysteresis.

Markus R Ernst, Thomas Burwick, Jochen Triesch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Markus R ErnstFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Thomas BurwickFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Jochen TrieschFrankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decades, object recognition has been predominantly studied and modelled as a feedforward process. This notion was supported by the fast response times in psychophysical and neurophysiological experiments and the recent success of deep feedforward neural networks for object recognition. Recently, however, this prevalent view has shifted and recurrent connectivity in the brain is now believed to contribute significantly to object recognition - especially under challenging conditions, including the recognition of partially occluded objects. Moreover, recurrent dynamics might be the key to understanding perceptual phenomena such as perceptual hysteresis. In this work we investigate if and how artificial neural networks can benefit from recurrent connections. We systematically compare architectures comprised of bottom-up, lateral, and top-down connections. To evaluate the impact of recurrent connections for occluded object recognition, we introduce three stereoscopic occluded object datasets, which span the range from classifying partially occluded hand-written digits to recognizing three-dimensional objects. We find that recurrent architectures perform significantly better than parameter-matched feedforward models. An analysis of the hidden representation of the models suggests that occluders are progressively discounted in later time steps of processing. We demonstrate that feedback can correct the initial misclassifications over time and that the recurrent dynamics lead to perceptual hysteresis. Overall, our results emphasize the importance of recurrent feedback for object recognition in difficult situations.

Indexed as

Pattern Recognition, VisualVisual PerceptionBrainHumansReaction TimeRecognition, Psychology

Identifiers

PMID34905052
PMCPMC8684313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.