Adapting internal statistical models for interpreting visual cues to depth.
The informativeness of sensory cues depends critically on statistical regularities in the environment. However, statistical regularities vary between different object categories and environments. We asked whether and how the brain changes the prior assumptions about scene statistics used to interpret visual depth cues when stimulus statistics change. Subjects judged the slants of stereoscopically presented figures by adjusting a virtual probe perpendicular to the surface. In addition to stereoscopic disparities, the aspect ratio of the stimulus in the image provided a "figural compression" cue to slant, whose reliability depends on the distribution of aspect ratios in the world. As we manipulated this distribution from regular to random and back again, subjects' reliance on the compression cue relative to stereoscopic cues changed accordingly. When we randomly interleaved stimuli from shape categories (ellipses and diamonds) with different statistics, subjects gave less weight to the compression cue for figures from the category with more random aspect ratios. Our results demonstrate that relative cue weights vary rapidly as a function of recently experienced stimulus statistics and that the brain can use different statistical models for different object categories. We show that subjects' behavior is consistent with that of a broad class of Bayesian learning models.
Seydell
Anna
A
Department of General and Experimental Psychology, University of Giessen, Germany. aseydell@gmail.com
Knill
David C
DC
Trommershäuser
Julia
J
D000222:Adaptation, Physiological / Q000502:physiology*; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D003463:Cues; D003867:Depth Perception / Q000502:physiology*; D005556:Form Perception / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology; D008959:Models, Neurological; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D011601:Psychophysics
J Vis. 2007 Jun 26;7(8):13
17685820
Vision Res. 1994 Jul;34(14):1863-74
7941388
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Apr;9(4):578-85
16547513
Vision Res. 1999 Oct;39(21):3621-9
10746132
J Opt Soc Am A. 1985 Feb;2(2):343-9
3973765
J Exp Psychol. 1974 Oct;103(4):668-74
4448966
Vision Res. 1995 Feb;35(3):389-412
7892735
J Vis. 2004 Dec 01;4(12):967-92
15669906
Science. 1965 Sep 3;149(3688):1115-6
17737844
J Neurosci. 2008 Apr 23;28(17):4356-67
18434514
Vision Res. 1992 Oct;32(10):1845-64
1287983
Vision Res. 1994 Sep;34(17):2259-75
7941420
Cognition. 1995 Mar;54(3):253-97
7720360
Vision Res. 1998 Sep;38(17):2635-56
12116709
Neural Comput. 1999 Aug 15;11(6):1297-330
10423497
Psychol Rev. 1990 Jan;97(1):78-89
2408090
J Opt Soc Am A. 1988 Oct;5(10):1749-58
3204438
J Vis. 2009 Aug 24;9(9):10.1-5
19761343
Vision Res. 1999 Dec;39(24):4062-75
10748939
Vision Res. 1993 Mar-Apr;33(5-6):813-26
8351852
Vision Res. 1998 Jun;38(11):1683-711
9747503
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2003 Jul;20(7):1398-406
12868644
Nat Neurosci. 1998 Jul;1(3):183-4
10195141
Vision Res. 2001 Mar;41(6):711-24
11248261
J Vis. 2007 Jan 16;7(1):4
17461672
Vision Res. 1998 Jun;38(11):1655-82
9747502
Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):598-604
12021763
J Vis. 2007 May 23;7(7):5.1-24
17685801
Cognition. 2001 Aug;81(1):B1-9
11525484