Abstract

Experimentalists tend to classify models of visual perception as being either local or global, and involving either feedforward or feedback processing. We argue that these distinctions are not as helpful as they might appear, and we illustrate these issues by analyzing models of visual crowding as an example. Recent studies have argued that crowding cannot be explained by purely local processing, but that instead, global factors such as perceptual grouping are crucial. Theories of perceptual grouping, in turn, often invoke feedback connections as a way to account for their global properties. We examined three types of crowding models that are representative of global processing models, and two of which employ feedback processing: a model based on Fourier filtering, a feedback neural network, and a specific feedback neural architecture that explicitly models perceptual grouping. Simulations demonstrate that crucial empirical findings are not accounted for by any of the models. We conclude that empirical investigations that reject a local or feedforward architecture offer almost no constraints for model construction, as there are an uncountable number of global and feedback systems. We propose that the identification of a system as being local or global and feedforward or feedback is less important than the identification of a system's computational details. Only the latter information can provide constraints on model development and promote quantitative explanations of complex phenomena.

Highlights

  • A common approach to understanding vision is to identify whether a particular aspect of visual perception involves “local” or “global” processing

  • We examined three types of crowding models that are representative of global processing models, and two of which employ feedback processing: a model based on Fourier filtering, a feedback neural network, and a specific feedback neural architecture that explicitly models perceptual grouping

  • Examples include Altmann et al (2003) reporting evidence for feedback processing in an fMRI study of perceptual organization; Enns and Di Lollo (2000) arguing that some forms of visual masking require re-entrant signals that represent objects; Juan and Walsh (2003) using TMS to argue that the representation of information in area V1 is influenced by feedback from other areas; and Keil et al (2009) reaching a www.frontiersin.org

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

A common approach to understanding vision is to identify whether a particular aspect of visual perception involves “local” or “global” processing. Our argument is not that distinctions between local and global or feedforward and feedback processing provide no information about the properties of the visual system; but if Figure 1B is correct, such distinctions will not generally provide sufficient constraints to promote model development for the identified effects. While this limitation may already be clear to many modelers, it seems that some experimentalists do not fully understand that such distinctions provide very little guidance for model development. This result suggests that we need to stop focusing on unhelpful dichotomies such as local vs. global and feedforward vs. feedback and instead should explore other properties of visual perception that help identify robust computational principles

VISUAL CROWDING AS AN EXAMPLE
A FEEDFORWARD GLOBAL MODEL
A FEEDBACK MODEL
A FEEDBACK MODEL WITH PERCEPTUAL GROUPING
Completion
Preservation
Uniformization
Comparison
CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call