Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38259351›Full record

ArticleArXiv2024

How does the primate brain combine generative and discriminative computations in vision?

Benjamin Peters, James J DiCarlo, Todd Gureckis, Ralf Haefner, Leyla Isik, Joshua Tenenbaum, Talia Konkle, Thomas Naselaris, Kimberly Stachenfeld, Zenna Tavares and 3 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Benjamin PetersZuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University.
James J DiCarloDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT.
Todd GureckisDepartment of Psychology, New York University.
Ralf HaefnerBrain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester.
Leyla IsikDepartment of Cognitive Science, Johns Hopkins University.
Joshua TenenbaumDepartment of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, MIT.
Talia KonkleDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University.
Thomas NaselarisDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Minnesota.
Kimberly StachenfeldDeepMind.
Zenna TavaresZuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University.
Doris TsaoDept of Molecular & Cell Biology, University of California Berkeley.
Ilker YildirimDepartment of Psychology, Yale University.
Nikolaus KriegeskorteZuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute, Columbia University.

Funding

Seen and mental images in visual cortexR01EY023384 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI HERMES, DORA, NASELARIS, THOMAS P · 2014 to 2025
$3.4M
The neural computations underlying human social interaction recognitionR01MH132826 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Leyla Isik · 2023 to 2026
$2.5M
CRCNS: The neural basis of probabilistic inference in the visual systemR01EY028811 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI HAEFNER, RALF MANFRED · 2017 to 2021
$1.6M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023384NEI NIH HHS R01 EY028811NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH132826
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vision is widely understood as an inference problem. However, two contrasting conceptions of the inference process have each been influential in research on biological vision as well as the engineering of machine vision. The first emphasizes bottom-up signal flow, describing vision as a largely feedforward, discriminative inference process that filters and transforms the visual information to remove irrelevant variation and represent behaviorally relevant information in a format suitable for downstream functions of cognition and behavioral control. In this conception, vision is driven by the sensory data, and perception is direct because the processing proceeds from the data to the latent variables of interest. The notion of "inference" in this conception is that of the engineering literature on neural networks, where feedforward convolutional neural networks processing images are said to perform inference. The alternative conception is that of vision as an inference process in Helmholtz's sense, where the sensory evidence is evaluated in the context of a generative model of the causal processes that give rise to it. In this conception, vision inverts a generative model through an interrogation of the sensory evidence in a process often thought to involve top-down predictions of sensory data to evaluate the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. The authors include scientists rooted in roughly equal numbers in each of the conceptions and motivated to overcome what might be a false dichotomy between them and engage the other perspective in the realm of theory and experiment. The primate brain employs an unknown algorithm that may combine the advantages of both conceptions. We explain and clarify the terminology, review the key empirical evidence, and propose an empirical research program that transcends the dichotomy and sets the stage for revealing the mysterious hybrid algorithm of primate vision.

Indexed as

discriminative modelgenerative modelPrimate visionvisual inference

Identifiers

PMID38259351
PMCPMC10802669

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.