Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39627268›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Exploring neural architectures for simultaneously recognizing multiple visual attributes.

Zhixian Han, Anne B Sereno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

2 authors.

Zhixian HanDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. han594@purdue.edu.
Anne B SerenoDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. asereno@purdue.edu.

Funding

NIH CTSI (Indiana State Department of Health) 20000703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much experimental evidence in neuroscience has suggested a division of higher visual processing into a ventral pathway specialized for object recognition and a dorsal pathway specialized for spatial recognition. Previous computational studies have suggested that neural networks with two segregated pathways (branches) have better performance in visual recognition tasks than neural networks with a single pathway (branch). One previously proposed possibility is that two pathways increase the learning efficiency of a network by allowing separate networks to process information about different visual attributes separately. However, most of these previous studies were limited, considering recognition of only two visual attributes, identity and location, simultaneously with a restricted number of classes in each attribute. We investigate whether it is always advantageous to use two-pathway networks when recognizing other visual attributes as well as examine whether the advantage of using two-pathway networks would be different when there are a different number of classes in each attribute. We find that it is always advantageous to use segregated pathways to process different visual attributes separately, with this advantage increasing with a greater number of classes. Thus, using a computational approach, we demonstrate that it is computationally advantageous to have separate pathways if the amount of variations of a given visual attribute is high or that attribute needs to be finely discriminated. Hence, when the size of the computer vision model is limited, designing a segregated pathway (branch) for a given visual attribute should only be used when it is computationally advantageous to do so.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerHumansModels, NeurologicalPattern Recognition, VisualVisual PathwaysVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID39627268
PMCPMC11615371

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.