skip to main content


Title: The case against probabilistic inference: a new deterministic theory of 3D visual processing
How the brain derives 3D information from inherently ambiguous visual input remains the fundamental question of human vision. The past two decades of research have addressed this question as a problem of probabilistic inference, the dominant model being maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE). This model assumes that independent depth-cue modules derive noisy but statistically accurate estimates of 3D scene parameters that are combined through a weighted average. Cue weights are adjusted based on the system representation of each module's output variability. Here I demonstrate that the MLE model fails to account for important psychophysical findings and, importantly, misinterprets the just noticeable difference, a hallmark measure of stimulus discriminability, to be an estimate of perceptual uncertainty. I propose a new theory, termed Intrinsic Constraint, which postulates that the visual system does not derive the most probable interpretation of the visual input, but rather, the most stable interpretation amid variations in viewing conditions. This goal is achieved with the Vector Sum model, which represents individual cue estimates as components of a multi-dimensional vector whose norm determines the combined output. This model accounts for the psychophysical findings cited in support of MLE, while predicting existing and new findings that contradict the MLE model. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘New approaches to 3D vision’.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2120610
NSF-PAR ID:
10442586
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Volume:
378
Issue:
1869
ISSN:
0962-8436
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Many sign languages are bona fide natural languages with grammatical rules and lexicons hence can benefit from machine translation methods. Similarly, since sign language is a visual-spatial language, it can also benefit from computer vision methods for encoding it. With the advent of deep learning methods in recent years, significant advances have been made in natural language processing (specifically neural machine translation) and in computer vision methods (specifically image and video captioning). Researchers have therefore begun expanding these learning methods to sign language understanding. Sign language interpretation is especially challenging, because it involves a continuous visual-spatial modality where meaning is often derived based on context. The focus of this article, therefore, is to examine various deep learning–based methods for encoding sign language as inputs, and to analyze the efficacy of several machine translation methods, over three different sign language datasets. The goal is to determine which combinations are sufficiently robust for sign language translation without any gloss-based information. To understand the role of the different input features, we perform ablation studies over the model architectures (input features + neural translation models) for improved continuous sign language translation. These input features include body and finger joints, facial points, as well as vector representations/embeddings from convolutional neural networks. The machine translation models explored include several baseline sequence-to-sequence approaches, more complex and challenging networks using attention, reinforcement learning, and the transformer model. We implement the translation methods over multiple sign languages—German (GSL), American (ASL), and Chinese sign languages (CSL). From our analysis, the transformer model combined with input embeddings from ResNet50 or pose-based landmark features outperformed all the other sequence-to-sequence models by achieving higher BLEU2-BLEU4 scores when applied to the controlled and constrained GSL benchmark dataset. These combinations also showed significant promise on the other less controlled ASL and CSL datasets. 
    more » « less
  2. Depth estimation is fundamental to 3D perception, and humans are known to have biased estimates of depth. This study investigates whether convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can be biased when predicting the sign of curvature and depth of surfaces of textured surfaces under different viewing conditions (field of view) and surface parameters (slant and texture irregularity). This hypothesis is drawn from the idea that texture gradients described by local neighborhoods—a cue identified in human vision literature—are also representable within convolutional neural networks. To this end, we trained both unsupervised and supervised CNN models on the renderings of slanted surfaces with random Polka dot patterns and analyzed their internal latent representations. The results show that the unsupervised models have similar prediction biases as humans across all experiments, while supervised CNN models do not exhibit similar biases. The latent spaces of the unsupervised models can be linearly separated into axes representing field of view and optical slant. For supervised models, this ability varies substantially with model architecture and the kind of supervision (continuous slant vs. sign of slant). Even though this study says nothing of any shared mechanism, these findings suggest that unsupervised CNN models can share similar predictions to the human visual system. Code: github.com/brownvc/Slant-CNN-Biases 
    more » « less
  3. Visually guided movements can show surprising accuracy even when the perceived three-dimensional (3D) shape of the target is distorted. One explanation of this paradox is that an evolutionarily specialized “vision-for-action” system provides accurate shape estimates by relying selectively on stereo information and ignoring less reliable sources of shape information like texture and shading. However, the key support for this hypothesis has come from studies that analyze average behavior across many visuomotor interactions where available sensory feedback reinforces stereo information. The present study, which carefully accounts for the effects of feedback, shows that visuomotor interactions with slanted surfaces are actually planned using the same cue-combination function as slant perception and that apparent dissociations can arise due to two distinct supervised learning processes: sensorimotor adaptation and cue reweighting. In two experiments, we show that when a distorted slant cue biases perception (e.g., surfaces appear flattened by a fixed amount), sensorimotor adaptation rapidly adjusts the planned grip orientation to compensate for this constant error. However, when the distorted slant cue is unreliable, leading to variable errors across a set of objects (i.e., some slants are overestimated, others underestimated), then relative cue weights are gradually adjusted to reduce the misleading effect of the unreliable cue, consistent with previous perceptual studies of cue reweighting. The speed and flexibility of these two forms of learning provide an alternative explanation of why perception and action are sometimes found to be dissociated in experiments where some 3D shape cues are consistent with sensory feedback while others are faulty. NEW & NOTEWORTHY When interacting with three-dimensional (3D) objects, sensory feedback is available that could improve future performance via supervised learning. Here we confirm that natural visuomotor interactions lead to sensorimotor adaptation and cue reweighting, two distinct learning processes uniquely suited to resolve errors caused by biased and noisy 3D shape cues. These findings explain why perception and action are often found to be dissociated in experiments where some cues are consistent with sensory feedback while others are faulty. 
    more » « less
  4. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract The retinal tissue is highly metabolically active and is responsible for translating the visual stimuli into electrical signals to be delivered to the brain. A complex vascular structure ensures an adequate supply of blood and oxygen, which is essential for the function and survival of the retinal tissue. To date, a complete understanding of the configuration of the retinal vascular structures is still lacking. Optical coherence tomography angiography has made available a huge amount of imaging data regarding the main retinal capillary plexuses, namely the superficial capillary plexuses (SCP), intermediate capillary plexuses (ICP) and deep capillary plexuses (DCP). However, the interpretation of these data is still controversial. In particular, the question of whether the three capillary plexuses are connected in series or in parallel remains a matter of debate. In this work, we address this question by utilizing a multi-scale/multi-physics mathematical model to quantify the impact of the two hypothesized vascular configurations on retinal hemodynamics and oxygenation. The response to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) and intraocular pressure (IOP) elevation is also simulated depending on whether the capillary plexuses are connected in series or in parallel. The simulation results show the following: (i) in the in series configuration, the plexuses exhibit a differential response, with DCP and ICP experiencing larger pressure drops than SCP; and (ii) in the in parallel configuration, the blood flow redistributes uniformly in the three plexuses. The different vascular configurations show different responses also in terms of oxygen profiles: (i) in the in series configuration, the outer nuclear layer, outer plexiform layer and inner nuclear layer (INL) are those most affected by CRVO and IOP elevation; and (ii) in the in parallel configuration the INL and ganglion cell layer are those most affected. The in series results are consistent with studies on paracentral acute middle maculopathy, secondary to CRVO and with studies on IOP elevation, in which DCP and ICP and the retinal tissues surrounding them are those most affected by ischemia. These findings seem to suggest that the in series configuration better describes the physiology of the vascular retinal capillary network in health and disease. 
    more » « less