Perceiving high-level relations

世界不仅包含对象和特征，还包含它们之间的关系。当一片水果放在一个碗里，而碗放在桌子上时，我们不仅欣赏单个物体的视觉外观（例如，一个红苹果，一个木碗），而且还欣赏“包容”（in）和“支撑”（on）的关系。数量惊人的日常任务依赖于这些和其他关系表示，例如组装家具、打包行李箱、阅读医疗图表或导航场景。除了参与其中的对象之外，思维是如何表现视觉关系本身的？这里提出的工作探索了一个令人兴奋的假设，即大脑是如何从图像中提取关系的——也就是说，这种关系是被正确地“感知”的，以一种快速和自动的方式，类似于对更熟悉的视觉属性（如大小、颜色或形状）的感知。在多个案例研究中——包括契合、平衡、包容、支持、粘附、封闭等感知——这项工作将采用心理物理学方法来感知关系，询问关系感知是否快速、自动、反射性地进行，并以与其他感知过程相互作用的方式进行。这里提出的工作有三个主要目的：(1)描述我们所感知的各种关系；(2)理解这些关系是如何被心灵提取出来的；(3)阐明它们在整个心灵中的作用。首先，我们可以看到什么样的关系？以前的工作主要集中在基本的几何和空间关系上（比如在旁边、上面或后面）；但世界上的物体以更丰富的方式相互联系。在这里，研究者将对出现在感知中的各种关系进行分类，特别关注“力-动态”关系，包括组合、包含、支持、平衡、覆盖、捆绑、连接、悬挂以及其他物体相互施加物理力的关系。第二，我们只是考虑、判断或推断对象之间的关系吗？或者我们也能直接看到它们吗？这项提议的下一个目标是调查关系感知的本质，通过询问大脑是否以显示真正感知处理特征的方式提取视觉关系，如速度、自动性、反射性（或认知不可穿透性），以及与其他感知过程的相互作用。第三，我们究竟为什么要感知关系？它们只是大脑的奇怪癖好，还是它们支持其他类型的知识？例如，一旦我们看到两个物体连接在一起，我们的大脑会自动预测拉动其中一个物体就会带动另一个物体吗？一旦我们看到两个物体部分可以组合成一个整体，是否更容易记住或计算这样的物体？这个项目的最终目的是探索关系感知如何支持其他复杂的心理处理，包括物体之间物理偶然性的自动预测。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

The world contains not only objects and features, but also relations holding between them. When a piece of fruit is in a bowl, and the bowl is on a table, we appreciate not only the visual appearance of the individual objects (e.g., a red apple, a wooden bowl), but also the relations "containment" (in) and "support" (on). A surprising number of everyday tasks depend on these and other relational representations, such as assembling furniture, packing a suitcase, reading a medical chart, or navigating a scene. How does the mind represent visual relations themselves, beyond the objects participating in them? The work proposed here explores an exciting hypothesis about how the mind extracts relations from images —— namely, that relations are properly *perceived*, in a fast and automatic manner akin to the perception of more familiar visual properties such as size, color, or shape. Across multiple case studies —— including the perception of fit, balance, containment, support, adhesion, enclosure, and more —— this work will take a psychophysical approach to the perception of relations, asking whether relational perception proceeds rapidly, automatically, reflexively, and in ways that interact with other perceptual processes.The work proposed here has three primary aims: (1) To characterize the kinds of relations we perceive; (2) To understand how such relations are extracted by the mind; and (3) To elucidate their function in the mind at large. First, what kinds of relations can we see? Previous work has focused mostly on basic geometric and spatial relations (such as being beside, above, or behind); but objects in the world are related to each other in far richer ways. Here, the investigator will catalog the kinds of relations that appear in perception, with a special focus on “force-dynamic” relations, including combining, containing, supporting, balancing, covering, tying, connecting, hanging, and other relations in which objects exert physical forces on one another. Second, do we only consider, judge, or infer the relations between objects? Or can we also see them directly? The next aim of this proposal is to investigate the nature of relational perception, by asking whether the mind extracts visual relations in ways that show signatures of genuinely perceptual processing, such as speed, automaticity, reflexiveness (or cognitive impenetrability), and interaction with other perceptual processes. Third, why do we perceive relations at all? Are they just curious quirks of the mind, or do they support other kinds of knowledge? For example, once we see that two objects are connected, do our minds automatically predict that tugging on one will bring the other along? Once we see that two object-parts can combine into a whole, is it easier to remember or count such objects? The final aim of this project is to explore how relational perception supports other sophisticated kinds of mental processing, including automatic prediction of physical contingencies between objects.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.