ArticleArXiv2024
Object recognition in primates: What can early visual areas contribute?
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
If neuroscientists were asked which brain area is responsible for object recognition in primates, most would probably answer infero-temporal (IT) cortex. While IT is likely responsible for fine discriminations, and it is accordingly dominated by foveal visual inputs, there is more to object recognition than fine discrimination. Importantly, foveation of an object of interest usually requires recognizing, with reasonable confidence, its presence in the periphery. Arguably, IT plays a secondary role in such peripheral recognition, and other visual areas might instead be more critical. To investigate how signals carried by early visual processing areas (such as LGN and V1) could be used for object recognition in the periphery, we focused here on the task of distinguishing faces from non-faces. We tested how sensitive various models were to nuisance parameters, such as changes in scale and orientation of the image, and the type of image background. We found that a model of V1 simple or complex cells could provide quite reliable information, resulting in performance better than 80% in realistic scenarios. An LGN model performed considerably worse. Because peripheral recognition is both crucial to enable fine recognition (by bringing an object of interest on the fovea), and probably sufficient to account for a considerable fraction of our daily recognition-guided behavior, we think that the current focus on area IT and foveal processing is too narrow. We propose that rather than a hierarchical system with IT-like properties as its primary aim, object recognition should be seen as a parallel process, with high-accuracy foveal modules operating in parallel with lower-accuracy and faster modules that can operate across the visual field.
Identifiers
39398202PMC11468158What 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.