Robust visual estimation as source separation.

Mordechai Z Juni, Manish Singh, Laurence T Maloney
Author Information
  1. Mordechai Z Juni: Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA. mjuni@nyu.edu

Abstract

We developed a method analogous to classification images that allowed us to measure the influence that each dot in a dot cluster had on observers' estimates of the center of the cluster. In Experiment 1, we investigated whether observers employ a robust estimator when estimating the centers of dot clusters that were drawn from a single distribution. Most observers' fitted influences did not differ significantly from that predicted by a center-of-gravity (COG) estimator. Such an estimator is not robust. In Experiments 2 and 3, we considered an alternative approach to the problem of robust estimation, based on source separation, that makes use of the visual system's ability to segment visual data. The observers' task was to estimate the center of one distribution when viewing complex dot clusters that were drawn from a mixture of two distributions. We compared human performance to that of an ideal observer that separated the cluster into two sources through a maximum likelihood algorithm and based its estimates of location using the dots it assigned to just one of the two sources. The results suggest that robust methods employed by the visual system are closely tied to mechanisms of perceptual segmentation.

References

  1. J Vis. 2008 Dec 22;8(16):10.1-19 [PMID: 19146276]
  2. Vision Res. 2007 Jun;47(14):1907-23 [PMID: 17499833]
  3. Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Aug;12(8):291-7 [PMID: 18614390]
  4. Nature. 1998 Aug 20;394(6695):780-4 [PMID: 9723616]
  5. J Vis. 2002;2(1):121-31 [PMID: 12678600]
  6. J Neurosci. 2006 Oct 4;26(40):10154-63 [PMID: 17021171]
  7. Vision Res. 1995 Feb;35(3):389-412 [PMID: 7892735]
  8. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42 [PMID: 9176953]
  9. J Vis. 2006 Jul 14;6(8):805-21 [PMID: 16895460]
  10. J Vis. 2008 May 23;8(7):6.1-13 [PMID: 19146239]
  11. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 [PMID: 9176952]
  12. Perception. 2006;35(8):1073-87 [PMID: 17076067]
  13. Vision Res. 1988;28(7):777-84 [PMID: 3227654]
  14. J Neurosci. 2007 Jun 27;27(26):6984-94 [PMID: 17596447]
  15. Vision Res. 1999 Aug;39(17):2929-46 [PMID: 10492819]
  16. Vision Res. 1990;30(11):1793-810 [PMID: 2288091]
  17. J Vis. 2009 Aug 24;9(9):8.1-20 [PMID: 19761341]
  18. Vision Res. 2003 Oct;43(23):2451-68 [PMID: 12972395]
  19. Vision Res. 1998 Mar;38(6):895-909 [PMID: 9624439]

MeSH Term

Form Perception
Humans
Linear Models
Models, Neurological
Normal Distribution
Orientation
Pattern Recognition, Visual
Photic Stimulation
Psychometrics

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0dotrobustvisualclusterobservers'estimatortwoestimatescenterclustersdrawndistributionestimationbasedsourceseparationonesourcesdevelopedmethodanalogousclassificationimagesallowedusmeasureinfluenceExperiment1investigatedwhetherobserversemployestimatingcenterssinglefittedinfluencesdiffersignificantlypredictedcenter-of-gravityCOGExperiments23consideredalternativeapproachproblemmakesusesystem'sabilitysegmentdatataskestimateviewingcomplexmixturedistributionscomparedhumanperformanceidealobserverseparatedmaximumlikelihoodalgorithmlocationusingdotsassignedjustresultssuggestmethodsemployedsystemcloselytiedmechanismsperceptualsegmentationRobust

Similar Articles

Cited By