ArticleBiological cybernetics2023
Extreme image transformations affect humans and machines differently.
Article in Biological cybernetics, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- What can computer vision learn from visual neuroscience? Introduction to the special issue.Biological cybernetics · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some recent artificial neural networks (ANNs) claim to model aspects of primate neural and human performance data. Their success in object recognition is, however, dependent on exploiting low-level features for solving visual tasks in a way that humans do not. As a result, out-of-distribution or adversarial input is often challenging for ANNs. Humans instead learn abstract patterns and are mostly unaffected by many extreme image distortions. We introduce a set of novel image transforms inspired by neurophysiological findings and evaluate humans and ANNs on an object recognition task. We show that machines perform better than humans for certain transforms and struggle to perform at par with humans on others that are easy for humans. We quantify the differences in accuracy for humans and machines and find a ranking of difficulty for our transforms for human data. We also suggest how certain characteristics of human visual processing can be adapted to improve the performance of ANNs for our difficult-for-machines transforms.
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.