ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
Investigating the temporal dynamics and modeling of mid-level feature representations in humans.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual perception unfolds through a hierarchy of transformations, beginning with the extraction of low-level features, such as edges, and culminating in the representation of high-level features such as object categories. While the processing of low- and high-level features is well studied, the intermediate transformations, that is, mid-level features, remain poorly understood. Here, we introduce a stimulus set of naturalistic 3D-rendered images and videos with ground-truth annotations for five candidate mid-level features (reflectance, scene depth, world normals, lighting, and skeleton position) alongside for one low-level feature (edges) and for one high-level feature (action identity). To determine when these features are processed in the brain, we collected electroencephalography (EEG) responses during stimulus presentation and trained linearized encoding models to predict EEG responses from the annotations. We first showed that candidate mid-level features were best represented between ~100 and 250 ms post-stimulus, between low- and high-level features, and consistent with a bridging role linking sensory and semantic processing. We then assessed convolutional neural networks (CNNs) as models of mid-level feature processing in humans and observed that although their hierarchies were shallower, they exhibited a comparable processing order for mid-level but not low- or high-level features, only for videos. Together, our results support the view that mid-level features are tied to surface- and shape-related processing and establish 3D-rendered stimuli with annotations as a valuable tool for investigating mid-level vision in biological and artificial neural networks.
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.