ArticleJournal of vision2022
Inference via sparse coding in a hierarchical vision model.
Article in Journal of vision, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Generalizing biological surround suppression based on center surround similarity via deep neural network models.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sparse coding has been incorporated in models of the visual cortex for its computational advantages and connection to biology. But how the level of sparsity contributes to performance on visual tasks is not well understood. In this work, sparse coding has been integrated into an existing hierarchical V2 model (Hosoya & Hyvärinen, 2015), but replacing its independent component analysis (ICA) with an explicit sparse coding in which the degree of sparsity can be controlled. After training, the sparse coding basis functions with a higher degree of sparsity resembled qualitatively different structures, such as curves and corners. The contributions of the models were assessed with image classification tasks, specifically tasks associated with mid-level vision including figure-ground classification, texture classification, and angle prediction between two line stimuli. In addition, the models were assessed in comparison with a texture sensitivity measure that has been reported in V2 (Freeman et al., 2013) and a deleted-region inference task. The results from the experiments show that although sparse coding performed worse than ICA at classifying images, only sparse coding was able to better match the texture sensitivity level of V2 and infer deleted image regions, both by increasing the degree of sparsity in sparse coding. Greater degrees of sparsity allowed for inference over larger deleted image regions. The mechanism that allows for this inference capability in sparse coding is described in this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.