ArticleJournal of vision2022
Contrast sensitivity functions in autoencoders.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating the contribution of early and late noise in vision from psychophysical data.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- A Turing Test for artificial nets devoted to vision.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- castleCSF - A contrast sensitivity function of color, area, spatiotemporal frequency, luminance and eccentricity.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Alignment of color discrimination in humans and image segmentation networks.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Article
- Information Flow in Biological Networks for Color Vision.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- On the synthesis of visual illusions using deep generative models.Journal of vision · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three decades ago, Atick et al. suggested that human frequency sensitivity may emerge from the enhancement required for a more efficient analysis of retinal images. Here we reassess the relevance of low-level vision tasks in the explanation of the contrast sensitivity functions (CSFs) in light of 1) the current trend of using artificial neural networks for studying vision, and 2) the current knowledge of retinal image representations. As a first contribution, we show that a very popular type of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), called autoencoders, may develop human-like CSFs in the spatiotemporal and chromatic dimensions when trained to perform some basic low-level vision tasks (like retinal noise and optical blur removal), but not others (like chromatic) adaptation or pure reconstruction after simple bottlenecks). As an illustrative example, the best CNN (in the considered set of simple architectures for enhancement of the retinal signal) reproduces the CSFs with a root mean square error of 11% of the maximum sensitivity. As a second contribution, we provide experimental evidence of the fact that, for some functional goals (at low abstraction level), deeper CNNs that are better in reaching the quantitative goal are actually worse in replicating human-like phenomena (such as the CSFs). This low-level result (for the explored networks) is not necessarily in contradiction with other works that report advantages of deeper nets in modeling higher level vision goals. However, in line with a growing body of literature, our results suggests another word of caution about CNNs in vision science because the use of simplified units or unrealistic architectures in goal optimization may be a limitation for the modeling and understanding of human vision.
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.