typicality sharpens category representations in object...

1
Fixation + + + ... 8 images 160 ms 590 ms 160 ms 160 ms 12 s + Fixation Fixation Boat Block 12 s 6 s 12 s Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run 7 Run 8 2 sessions x 8 runs each (80 min total) 300 s Fixation Plane Block 6 s 12 s Fixation Bird Block 6 s 12 s Fixation Dog Block 6 s 12 s 16 blocks Fixation Car Block 6 s 12 s Fixation 12 s Fixation Dog Block 6 s 12 s ... Malamute Canoe Biplane Hen Sedan Pug 12 s + Fixation 590 ms Run 9 Run 10 Run 11 Run 13 Run 14 Run 15 Run 16 Run 12 p < 0.025 p < 0.050 p < 0.025 p < 0.050 p > 0.050 LH RH More Typical > Less Typical Less Typical > More Typical Typicality Rankings for Real-World Categories Typicality Sharpens Category Representations in Object-Selective Cortex Marius C ă tălin Iordan ¹ , Michelle R. Greene ¹ , Diane M. Beck ² , Li Fei-Fei ¹ 1 Department of Computer Science, Stanford University 2 Beckman Institute and Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] * V1 V2 V3v hV4 * LOC 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 -0.03 CATEGORY BOUNDARY EFFECT (R) 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 -0.03 Most Typical Least Typical ** n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. C G W 0.0 2.0 -2.0 V1 V2 V3v hV4 *** LOC 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 CORRELATION (R) 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 Most Typical Least Typical * * ** *** * n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. C G W 0.0 1.0 -1.0 -0.10 -0.10 methods: 16 images per exemplar (across 2 blocks) passive viewing analysis: use MVPA to characterize similarity and dissimilarity of activity patterns within and between categories Typical exemplars more similar to central category tendency in LOC Typical exemplars distinguish more strongly between categories in LOC Suggests prototype representation for real-world objects Birds Cats Dogs Fish Cars Boats Planes Trains more typical less typical behavioral experiment typicality rankings for each 8 exemplars within their category stimulus set 8 categories 8 exemplars per category 16 images per exemplar ANIMALS (animate, natural) VEHICLES (inanimate, man-made) which is the best dog? faster recognition, faster categorization for typical items Posner & Keele (1968), Rosch (1973), Rosch & Mervis (1975) RT for recognition / categorization Neural Typicality Hypothesis: Family Resemblance relationship with central category tendency typical items share more features in common with central tendency differentiating between categories sharper category boundaries between typical items compared to less typical items typicality effect no typicality effect LOC V1, V2,V3v, hV4 Whole-Brain Searchlight Analysis fMRI Experiment Summary Less typical exemplars more distinguishable in cIPL cIPL involved in category learning, memory of object context Suggests contextual facilitation of categorization for atypical exemplars Typicality may constitute a previously unexplored principle of organization for intra-category neural structure New Hypotheses Intermediate visual processing may prioritize the embedding of behaviorally relevant dimensions of variance directly into neural representations Selected References: Posner & Keele (1968) J. Exp. Psychol. Rosch (1973) Cogn. Dev. Acq. Lang. Rosch & Mervis (1975) Cogn. Psychol. Deng et al. (2011) CVPR Davis & Poldrack (in press) Cerebral Cortex Iordan, Greene, Beck, & Fei-Fei (in press) JOCN

Upload: others

Post on 14-Aug-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Typicality Sharpens Category Representations in Object ...miordan/materials/iordan-cns-poster-2015.pdf · Fixation ++... 8 images 12 s 160 ms 590 ms 160 ms 160 ms + Fixation Fixation

Fixation

+ + +...

8 images

160 ms 590 ms 160 ms 160 ms12 s

+

Fixation FixationBoatBlock

12 s 6 s 12 s

Run1

Run2

Run3

Run 4

Run 5

Run 6

Run 7

Run8

2 sessions x 8 runs each (80 min total)

300 s

FixationPlaneBlock

6 s 12 s

FixationBirdBlock

6 s 12 s

FixationDogBlock

6 s 12 s

16 blocks

FixationCarBlock

6 s 12 s

Fixation

12 s

FixationDogBlock

6 s 12 s

...

MalamuteCanoe Biplane Hen Sedan Pug

12 s

+

Fixation

590 ms

Run9

Run10

Run11

Run 13

Run 14

Run 15

Run16

Run 12 p < 0.025 p < 0.050 p < 0.025p < 0.050p > 0.050

LH RH

More Typical > Less TypicalLess Typical > More Typical

Typicality Rankings for Real-World Categories

Typicality Sharpens Category Representations inObject-Selective Cortex

Marius Cătălin Iordan¹, Michelle R. Greene¹, Diane M. Beck², Li Fei-Fei¹1Department of Computer Science, Stanford University 2Beckman Institute and Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

*

V1 V2 V3v hV4

*

LOC

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

-0.03

CATE

GO

RY B

OUN

DARY

EFF

ECT

(R)

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

-0.03

Most Typical Least Typical

**

n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.

C G W

0.0

2.0

-2.0

V1 V2 V3v hV4

***

LOC

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.00

CORR

ELAT

ION

(R)

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.00

Most Typical Least Typical

**

**

****n.s.n.s.n.s.n.s.

C G W

0.0

1.0

-1.0

-0.10 -0.10

methods:16 images per exemplar (across 2 blocks)

passive viewing

analysis: use MVPA to characterize similarity and dissimilarity

of activity patterns within and between categories

Typical exemplars more similar to central category tendency in LOCTypical exemplars distinguish more strongly between categories in LOC

Suggests prototype representation for real-world objects

BirdsCatsDogsFishCarsBoatsPlanesTrains

more typical less typical

behavioral experimenttypicality rankings

for each 8 exemplars within their category

stimulus set8 categories

8 exemplars per category16 images per exemplar

ANIMALS(animate, natural)

VEHICLES(inanimate, man-made)

which is the best dog?faster recognition, faster categorization for typical items

Posner & Keele (1968), Rosch (1973), Rosch & Mervis (1975)

RT for recognition / categorization

Neural Typicality Hypothesis: Family Resemblance

relationship with central category tendencytypical items share more features in common with central tendency

differentiating between categoriessharper category boundaries between typical items compared to less typical items

typicality effect no typicality effect

LOC V1, V2,V3v, hV4

Whole-Brain Searchlight AnalysisfMRI Experiment Summary

Less typical exemplars more distinguishable in cIPLcIPL involved in category learning, memory of object context

Suggests contextual facilitation of categorization for atypical exemplars

Typicality may constitute a previously unexplored principle of organization for intra-category neural structure

New HypothesesIntermediate visual processing may prioritize the embedding of

behaviorally relevant dimensions of variance directly into neural representations

Selected References: Posner & Keele (1968) J. Exp. Psychol. ✦ Rosch (1973) Cogn. Dev. Acq. Lang. ✦ Rosch & Mervis (1975) Cogn. Psychol. ✦ Deng et al. (2011) CVPR ✦ Davis & Poldrack (in press) Cerebral Cortex ✦ Iordan, Greene, Beck, & Fei-Fei (in press) JOCN