IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1002520.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimality of Human Contour Integration

Author

Listed:
  • Udo A Ernst
  • Sunita Mandon
  • Nadja Schinkel–Bielefeld
  • Simon D Neitzel
  • Andreas K Kreiter
  • Klaus R Pawelzik

Abstract

For processing and segmenting visual scenes, the brain is required to combine a multitude of features and sensory channels. It is neither known if these complex tasks involve optimal integration of information, nor according to which objectives computations might be performed. Here, we investigate if optimal inference can explain contour integration in human subjects. We performed experiments where observers detected contours of curvilinearly aligned edge configurations embedded into randomly oriented distractors. The key feature of our framework is to use a generative process for creating the contours, for which it is possible to derive a class of ideal detection models. This allowed us to compare human detection for contours with different statistical properties to the corresponding ideal detection models for the same stimuli. We then subjected the detection models to realistic constraints and required them to reproduce human decisions for every stimulus as well as possible. By independently varying the four model parameters, we identify a single detection model which quantitatively captures all correlations of human decision behaviour for more than 2000 stimuli from 42 contour ensembles with greatly varying statistical properties. This model reveals specific interactions between edges closely matching independent findings from physiology and psychophysics. These interactions imply a statistics of contours for which edge stimuli are indeed optimally integrated by the visual system, with the objective of inferring the presence of contours in cluttered scenes. The recurrent algorithm of our model makes testable predictions about the temporal dynamics of neuronal populations engaged in contour integration, and it suggests a strong directionality of the underlying functional anatomy. Author Summary: Since Helmholtz put forward his concept that the brain performs inference on its sensory input for building an internal representation of the outside world, it is a puzzle for neuroscientific research whether visual perception can indeed be understood from first principles. An important part of vision is the integration of colinearly aligned edge elements into contours, which is required for the detection of object boundaries. We show that this visual function can fully be explained in a probabilistic model with a well–defined statistical objective. For this purpose, we developed a novel method to adapt models to correlations in human behaviour, and applied this technique to tightly link psychophysical experiments and numerical simulations of contour integration. The results not only demonstrate that complex neuronal computations can be elegantly described in terms of constrained probabilistic inference, but also reveal yet unknown neural mechanisms underlying early visual information processing.

Suggested Citation

  • Udo A Ernst & Sunita Mandon & Nadja Schinkel–Bielefeld & Simon D Neitzel & Andreas K Kreiter & Klaus R Pawelzik, 2012. "Optimality of Human Contour Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002520
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002520
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002520&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002520?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert F. Hess & Steven C. Dakin, 1997. "Absence of contour linking in peripheral vision," Nature, Nature, vol. 390(6660), pages 602-604, December.
    2. Uri Polat & Keiko Mizobe & Mark W. Pettet & Takuji Kasamatsu & Anthony M. Norcia, 1998. "Collinear stimuli regulate visual responses depending on cell's contrast threshold," Nature, Nature, vol. 391(6667), pages 580-584, February.
    3. Marc O. Ernst & Martin S. Banks, 2002. "Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6870), pages 429-433, January.
    4. Konrad P. Körding & Daniel M. Wolpert, 2004. "Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6971), pages 244-247, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sophie Hall & Patrick Bourke & Kun Guo, 2014. "Low Level Constraints on Dynamic Contour Path Integration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    2. Malte Persike & Günter Meinhardt, 2015. "Effects of Spatial Frequency Similarity and Dissimilarity on Contour Integration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wen-Hao Zhang & Si Wu & Krešimir Josić & Brent Doiron, 2023. "Sampling-based Bayesian inference in recurrent circuits of stochastic spiking neurons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    3. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Tim Genewein & Eduard Hez & Zeynab Razzaghpanah & Daniel A Braun, 2015. "Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    5. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2012. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 81-103.
    6. Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle, 2007. "Reason, Emotion and Information Processing in the Brain," CEPR Discussion Papers 6535, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Jannes Jegminat & Maya A Jastrzębowska & Matthew V Pachai & Michael H Herzog & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2020. "Bayesian regression explains how human participants handle parameter uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Guido Marco Cicchini & Giovanni D’Errico & David Charles Burr, 2022. "Crowding results from optimal integration of visual targets with contextual information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Philipp Schustek & Rubén Moreno-Bote, 2018. "Instance-based generalization for human judgments about uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, June.
    10. Edward J A Turnham & Daniel A Braun & Daniel M Wolpert, 2011. "Inferring Visuomotor Priors for Sensorimotor Learning," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(3), pages 1-13, March.
    11. Jingwei Sun & Jian Li & Hang Zhang, 2019. "Human representation of multimodal distributions as clusters of samples," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-29, May.
    12. Malte Persike & Günter Meinhardt, 2015. "Effects of Spatial Frequency Similarity and Dissimilarity on Contour Integration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Jordi Grau-Moya & Pedro A Ortega & Daniel A Braun, 2012. "Risk-Sensitivity in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-7, September.
    14. Laurence Aitchison & Máté Lengyel, 2016. "The Hamiltonian Brain: Efficient Probabilistic Inference with Excitatory-Inhibitory Neural Circuit Dynamics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Joseph G Makin & Matthew R Fellows & Philip N Sabes, 2013. "Learning Multisensory Integration and Coordinate Transformation via Density Estimation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, April.
    16. Luigi Acerbi & Daniel M Wolpert & Sethu Vijayakumar, 2012. "Internal Representations of Temporal Statistics and Feedback Calibrate Motor-Sensory Interval Timing," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Shih-Wei Wu & Maria F Dal Martello & Laurence T Maloney, 2009. "Sub-Optimal Allocation of Time in Sequential Movements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-13, December.
    18. Simon Weiler & Vahid Rahmati & Marcel Isstas & Johann Wutke & Andreas Walter Stark & Christian Franke & Jürgen Graf & Christian Geis & Otto W. Witte & Mark Hübener & Jürgen Bolz & Troy W. Margrie & Kn, 2024. "A primary sensory cortical interareal feedforward inhibitory circuit for tacto-visual integration," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Li Zhaoping & Li Zhe, 2015. "Primary Visual Cortex as a Saliency Map: A Parameter-Free Prediction and Its Test by Behavioral Data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-39, October.
    20. Leopold Zizlsperger & Thomas Sauvigny & Thomas Haarmeier, 2012. "Selective Attention Increases Choice Certainty in Human Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-9, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1002520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.