bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Tulver, K.

Publications and source records attributed to Tulver, K..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Comparing a computational model of visual problem solving with human vision on a difficult vision task.

Human vision is not merely a passive process of interpreting sensory input but can also function as a problem-solving process incorporating generative mechanisms to interpret ambiguous or noisy data. This synergy between the generative and discriminative components, often described as analysis-by-synthesis, enables robust perception and rapid adaptation to out-of-distribution inputs. In this work, we investigate a computational implementation of the analysis-by-synthesis paradigm using genetic search in a generative model, applied to a visual problem-solving task inspired by star constellations. The search is guided by low-level cues based on the structural fitness of candidate solutions compared to the test images. This dataset serves as a testbed for exploring how inferred signals can guide the synthesis of suitable solutions in ambiguous conditions, framing visual inference as an instance of complex problem solving. Drawing on insights from human experiments, we develop a generative search algorithm and compare its performance to humans, examining factors such as accuracy, reaction time, and overlap in drawings. Our results shed light on possible mechanisms of human visual problem solving and highlight the potential of generative search models to emulate aspects of this process. Author summaryHuman vision is not just about passively receiving information from the environment. Rather, it also involves actively making sense of what we see. When faced with unclear or incomplete visual input, our brains use prior knowledge to fill in gaps and create the most likely interpretation. This ability helps us recognize objects and patterns even in difficult conditions. In this study, we explore how this process can be replicated using computer models. Specifically, we test a method that generates possible interpretations of ambiguous visual data, inspired by the way people recognize star constellations. By comparing the models performance with human participants, we examine how well it mirrors human perception. We analyze factors such as accuracy, response time, and similarities in the interpretations produced. Our findings offer insights into how people make sense of uncertain visual information and suggest ways in which computer models can be designed to mimic this ability. These results can contribute to our understanding of human perception as well as help advance artificial vision systems beyond simple pattern recognition.

neuroscience↗

Individual differences in the effects of priors on perception: a multi-paradigm approach

The present study investigated individual differences in how much subjects rely on prior information, such as expectations or knowledge, when faced with perceptual ambiguity. The behavioural performance of forty-four participants was measured on four different visual paradigms (Mooney face recognition, illusory contours, blur detection and representational momentum) in which priors have been shown to affect perception. In addition, questionnaires were used to measure autistic and schizotypal traits in the non-clinical population. We hypothesized that someone who in the face of ambiguous or noisy perceptual input relies heavily on priors, would exhibit this tendency across a variety of tasks. This general pattern would then be reflected in high pairwise correlations between the behavioural measures and an emerging common factor. On the contrary, our results imply that there is no single factor that explains the individual differences present in the aforementioned tasks, as further evidenced by the overall lack of robust correlations between the separate paradigms. Instead, a two-factor structure reflecting differences in the hierarchy of perceptual processing was the best fit for explaining the individual variance in these tasks. This lends support to the notion that mechanisms underlying the effects of priors likely originate from several independent sources and that it is important to consider the role of specific tasks and stimuli more carefully when reporting effects of priors on perception.

neuroscience↗