ArticleCommunications biology2024
A computational deep learning investigation of animacy perception in the human brain.
Article in Communications biology, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The functional organization of the human object vision pathway distinguishes between animate and inanimate objects. To understand animacy perception, we explore the case of zoomorphic objects resembling animals. While the perception of these objects as animal-like seems obvious to humans, such "Animal bias" is a striking discrepancy between the human brain and deep neural networks (DNNs). We computationally investigated the potential origins of this bias. We successfully induced this bias in DNNs trained explicitly with zoomorphic objects. Alternative training schedules failed to cause an Animal bias. We considered the superordinate distinction between animate and inanimate classes, the sensitivity for faces and bodies, the bias for shape over texture, the role of ecologically valid categories, recurrent connections, and language-informed visual processing. These findings provide computational support that the Animal bias for zoomorphic objects is a unique property of human perception yet can be explained by human learning history.
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.