Priors, preferences and categorical percepts
Priors, preferences and categorical percepts
复制标题
先验、偏好和分类感知
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1996
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Feldman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Richards;A. Jepson;J. Feldman
视知觉是从图像结构推断世界结构的过程。如果我们从图像中恢复的世界结构作为一个看似合理的世界事件“有意义”，那么我们就有了一个“概念”，并且通常可以对我们所看到的事物进行简洁的语言描述。例如，在图3.1的上面板中，如果被问到“What do you see？“，典型的响应可能是具有直立（左）或at（右）手柄的药盒。这种简洁和conndent的反应表明，我们已经确定了一个模型类型，它的图像观察没有残留的模糊性的水平的描述。相比之下，当被要求描述图3.1中下面的两幅图时，有些犹豫和不确定。手柄是否直立？它是斜的还是长方形的？这种描述给我们留下了一些不确定性，好像有几种选择是可能的，但没有一种是所有方面的解释都相互支持的。那么，是什么让我们在上集合中得到确定性，而在下集合中得到模糊性呢？为了更精确地描述我们的目标，让我们假设一些类似华尔兹的算法已经将碉堡的底部和线框手柄识别为单独的3D部件。即使有了这种分解，这些图画中的任何一幅都仍然有可能被解释。然而，我们conndently承诺一个解释的情况下，上面板，但否则为较低的对。因此，我们的目标是理解为什么上图中的意象结构支持这样一种断言，即它们只能产生于非常特殊的世界结构，而下图中的两个结构似乎更加模糊。我们的分析将包括三个部分：首先，我们将布局与有手柄的碉堡相关的域。那么偏好的作用为80
Visual perception is the process of inferring world structure from image structure. If the world structure we recover from our images \makes sense" as a plausible world event, then we have a \percept" and can often ooer a concise linguistic description of what we see. For example, in the upper panel of Figure 3.1, if asked, \What do you see?", a typical response might be a pillbox with a handle either erect (left) or at (right). This concise and conndent response suggests that we have identiied a model type that ts the image observation with no residual ambiguities at the level of the description. In contrast, when asked to describe the two lower drawings in Figure 3.1, there is some hesitancy and uncertainty. Is the handle erect or not? Does it have a skewed or rectangular shape? The depiction leaves us somewhat uncertain, as if several options were possible, but none where all aspects of the interpretation collectively support each other. What then, leads us to the certainty in the upper set and to the ambiguity in the lower pair? To be a bit more precise about our goal, let us assume that some Waltz-like algorithm has already identiied the base of the pillbox and the wire-frame handle as separate 3D parts. Even with this decomposition, there remains an innnity of possible interpretations for any of these drawings. Yet we conndently commit to one interpretation in the case of the upper panel, but otherwise for the lower pair. Our aim, then, is to understand why the image structures in the upper panel support the assertion that they must arise only from very particular world structures, whereas the lower two structures seem more ambiguous. Our analysis will consist of three parts: rst we will lay out the domain associated with pillboxes having handles. Then the role of preferences for 80