Why Use Noise?

Measuring the dependence of visual sensitivity on parameters of the visual stimulus is a mainstay of vision science. However, it is not widely appreciated that visual sensitivity is a product of two factors that are each invariant with respect to many properties of the stimulus and task. By estimating these two factors, one can isolate visual processes more easily than by using sensitivity measures alone. The underlying idea is that noise limits all forms of communication, including vision. As an empirical matter, it is often useful to measure the human observer’s threshold with and without a noise background added to the display, to disentangle the observer’s ability from the observer’s intrinsic noise. And when we know how much noise there is, it is often useful to calculate ideal performance of the task at hand, as a benchmark for human performance. This strips away the intrinsic difficulty of the task to reveal a pure measure of human ability. Here we show how to do the factoring of sensitivity into efficiency and equivalent noise, and we document the invariances of the two factors

Spatial-frequency channels, shape bias, and adversarial robustness

What spatial frequency information do humans and neural networks use to recognize objects? In neuroscience, critical band masking is an established tool that can reveal the frequency-selective filters used for object recognition. Critical band masking measures the sensitivity of recognition performance to noise added at each spatial frequency. Existing critical band masking studies show that humans recognize periodic patterns (gratings) and letters by means of a spatial-frequency filter (or "channel'') that has a frequency bandwidth of one octave (doubling of frequency). Here, we introduce critical band masking as a task for network-human comparison and test 14 humans and 76 neural networks on 16-way ImageNet categorization in the presence of narrowband noise. We find that humans recognize objects in natural images using the same one-octave-wide channel that they use for letters and gratings, making it a canonical feature of human object recognition. On the other hand, the neural network channel, across various architectures and training strategies, is 2-4 times as wide as the human channel. In other words, networks are vulnerable to high and low frequency noise that does not affect human performance. Adversarial and augmented-image training are commonly used to increase network robustness and shape bias. Does this training align network and human object recognition channels? Three network channel properties (bandwidth, center frequency, peak noise sensitivity) correlate strongly with shape bias (53% variance explained) and with robustness of adversarially-trained networks (74% variance explained). Adversarial training increases robustness but expands the channel bandwidth even further away from the human bandwidth. Thus, critical band masking reveals that the network channel is more than twice as wide as the human channel, and that adversarial training only increases this difference.Comment: Accepted to Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) 2023 (Oral Presentation

Agnosic vision is like peripheral vision, which is limited by crowding

Abstract Visual agnosia is a neuropsychological impairment of visual object recognition despite near-normal acuity and visual fields. A century of research has provided only a rudimentary account of the functional damage underlying this deficit. We find that the object-recognition ability of agnosic patients viewing an object directly is like that of normally-sighted observers viewing it indirectly, with peripheral vision. Thus, agnosic vision is like peripheral vision. We obtained 14 visual-object-recognition tests that are commonly used for diagnosis of visual agnosia. Our "standard" normal observer took these tests at various eccentricities in his periphery. Analyzing the published data of 32 apperceptive agnosia patients and a group of 14 posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) patients on these tests, we find that each patient's pattern of object recognition deficits is well characterized by one number, the equivalent eccentricity at which our standard observer's peripheral vision is like the central vision of the agnosic patient. In other words, each agnosic patient's equivalent eccentricity is conserved across tests. Across patients, equivalent eccentricity ranges from 4 to 40 deg, which rates severity of the visual deficit. In normal peripheral vision, the required size to perceive a simple image (e.g., an isolated letter) is limited by acuity, and that for a complex image (e.g., a face or a word) is limited by crowding. In crowding, adjacent simple objects appear unrecognizably jumbled unless their spacing exceeds the crowding distance, which grows linearly with eccentricity. Besides conservation of equivalent eccentricity across object-recognition tests, we also find conservation, from eccentricity to agnosia, of the relative susceptibility of recognition of ten visual tests. These findings show that agnosic vision is like eccentric vision. Whence crowding? Peripheral vision, strabismic amblyopia, and possibly apperceptive agnosia are all limited by crowding, making it urgent to know what drives crowding. Acuity does not (Song et al., 2014), but neural density might: neurons per deg2 in the crowding-relevant cortical area

Grouping in object recognition: The role of a Gestalt law in letter identification

The Gestalt psychologists reported a set of laws describing how vision groups elements to recognize objects. The Gestalt laws “prescribe for us what we are to recognize ‘as one thing’” (Köhler, 1920). Were they right? Does object recognition involve grouping? Tests of the laws of grouping have been favourable, but mostly assessed only detection, not identification, of the compound object. The grouping of elements seen in the detection experiments with lattices and “snakes in the grass” is compelling, but falls far short of the vivid everyday experience of recognizing a familiar, meaningful, named thing, which mediates the ordinary identification of an object. Thus, after nearly a century, there is hardly any evidence that grouping plays a role in ordinary object recognition. To assess grouping in object recognition, we made letters out of grating patches and measured threshold contrast for identifying these letters in visual noise as a function of perturbation of grating orientation, phase, and offset. We define a new measure, “wiggle”, to characterize the degree to which these various perturbations violate the Gestalt law of good continuation. We find that efficiency for letter identification is inversely proportional to wiggle and is wholly determined by wiggle, independent of how the wiggle was produced. Thus the effects of three different kinds of shape perturbation on letter identifiability are predicted by a single measure of goodness of continuation. This shows that letter identification obeys the Gestalt law of good continuation and may be the first confirmation of the original Gestalt claim that object recognition involves grouping

An auditory-visual tradeoff in susceptibility to clutter

Sensory cortical mechanisms combine auditory or visual features into perceived objects. This is difficult in noisy or cluttered environments. Knowing that individuals vary greatly in their susceptibility to clutter, we wondered whether there might be a relation between an individual's auditory and visual susceptibilities to clutter. In auditory masking, background sound makes spoken words unrecognizable. When masking arises due to interference at central auditory processing stages, beyond the cochlea, it is called informational masking. A strikingly similar phenomenon in vision, called visual crowding, occurs when nearby clutter makes a target object unrecognizable, despite being resolved at the retina. We here compare susceptibilities to auditory informational masking and visual crowding in the same participants. Surprisingly, across participants, we find a negative correlation (R = -0.7) between susceptibility to informational masking and crowding: Participants who have low susceptibility to auditory clutter tend to have high susceptibility to visual clutter, and vice versa. This reveals a tradeoff in the brain between auditory and visual processing.R01 DC019126 - NIDCD NIH HHS; R01 EY027964 - NEI NIH HHSAccepted manuscrip

Substitution and pooling in crowding

Unless we fixate directly on it, it is hard to see an object among other objects. This breakdown in object recognition, called crowding, severely limits peripheral vision. The effect is more severe when objects are more similar. When observers mistake the identity of a target among flanker objects, they often report a flanker. Many have taken these flanker reports as evidence of internal substitution of the target by a flanker. Here, we ask observers to identify a target letter presented in between one similar and one dissimilar flanker letter. Simple substitution takes in only one letter, which is often the target but, by unwitting mistake, is sometimes a flanker. The opposite of substitution is pooling, which takes in more than one letter. Having taken only one letter, the substitution process knows only its identity, not its similarity to the target. Thus, it must report similar and dissimilar flankers equally often. Contrary to this prediction, the similar flanker is reported much more often than the dissimilar flanker, showing that rampant flanker substitution cannot account for most flanker reports. Mixture modeling shows that simple substitution can account for, at most, about half the trials. Pooling and nonpooling (simple substitution) together include all possible models of crowding. When observers are asked to identify a crowded object, at least half of their reports are pooled, based on a combination of information from target and flankers, rather than being based on a single letter

Parts, Wholes, and Context in Reading: A Triple Dissociation

Research in object recognition has tried to distinguish holistic recognition from recognition by parts. One can also guess an object from its context. Words are objects, and how we recognize them is the core question of reading research. Do fast readers rely most on letter-by-letter decoding (i.e., recognition by parts), whole word shape, or sentence context? We manipulated the text to selectively knock out each source of information while sparing the others. Surprisingly, the effects of the knockouts on reading rate reveal a triple dissociation. Each reading process always contributes the same number of words per minute, regardless of whether the other processes are operating