Evolution of visually guided behavior in artificial agents

Network: Computation in Neural Systems

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 11-34

  Boots, Byron ^a   Nundy, Surajit ^a   Purves, Dale ^a,b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Autonomous agents; Genetic algorithms; Neural networks; Vision

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ATTENTION; BEHAVIOR; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOLUTION; HUMAN; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; VISION; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL SYSTEM;

ANIMALS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ATTENTION; BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION; HUMANS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PATHWAYS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 34047238965     PISSN: 0954898X     EISSN: 13616536     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09548980601113254     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Back T. 1996. Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice: Evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Barlow H. 2001. Redundancy reduction revisited. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 12:241-253.
3. Bell AJ, Sejnowski TJ. 1997. The 'independent components' of natural scenes are edge filters. Vision Research 37:3327-3338.
4. Bosking WH, Zhang Y, Schofield B, Fitzpatrick D, et al. 1997. Orientation selectivity and the arrangement of horizontal connections in tree shrew striate cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 17(6):2112-2127.
5. Bishop CM. 1995. Neural networks for pattern recognition. New York: Clarendon Press.
6. Caywood MS, Willmore B, Tolhurst DJ, et al. 2001. The color tuning of independent components of natural scenes matches VI simple cells. Journal of Vision 1:65a.
7. Cliff D, Harvey I, Husbands P. 1997. Artificial evolution of visual control systems for robots. In: Srinivisan M, Venkatesh S, editors. From living eyes to seeing machines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Dain RA. 1998. Developing mobile robot wall-following algorithms using genetic programming. Applied Intelligence 8(1):33-41.
9. Eiben AE, Smith JE. 2003. Introduction to evolutionary computing (Natural Computing Series). New York: Springer.
10. Floreano D, Mondada F. 1994. Automatic creation of an autonomous agent: Genetic evolution of a neural-driven robot. From animals to animats. Third International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Bradford Books, pp 421-430.
11. Floreano D, Mondada F. 1996. Evolution of homing navigation in a real mobile robot. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B: Cybernetics 26:396-407.
12. Floreano D, Mondada F. 1998. Evolutionary neurocontrollers for autonomous mobile robots. Neural Networks 11:1461-1478.
13. Forsyth D, Ponce J. 2003. Computer vision: A modern approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
14. Geisler WS, Perry JS, et al. 2001. Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vision Research 41 (6):711-724.
15. Gibson JJ. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Goldberg DE. 1989. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.
17. Heimholtz HV. 1924. Helmholtz's treatise on physiological optics. New York: Optical Society of America.
18. Holland JH. 1975. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Horn BKP. 1975. Obtaining shape from shading information. In: Winston PH, editor. The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20. Howe CQ, Purves D. 2002. Range image statistics can explain the anomalous perception of length. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99:13184-13188.
21. Howe CQ, Purves D. 2004. Size contrast and assimilation explained by the statistics of scene geometry. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:90-102.
22. Howe CQ, Purves D. 2005a. Perceiving geometry: Geometrical illusions explained in terms of natural scene geometry. New York: Springer.
23. Howe CQ, Purves D. 2005b. Natural scene geometry predicts the perception of angles and line orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102:1228-1233.
24. Howe CQ, Lotto RB, Purves D. 2006. Comparison of Bayesian and empirical ranking approaches to visual perception. Journal of Theoretical Biology 241:866-875.
25. Hudel DH, Wiesel TN. 1968. Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex. Journal of Physiology 195(1):215-243.
26. Hudel DH, Wiesel TN (1962) Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex. J Physiol 160:106-154.
27. Ittleson W. 1952. The Ames demonstrations in perception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28. Knill D, Richards W. 1996. In: Knill DC, Richards W, editors. Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29. Lee TW, Wachtler T, Sejnowksi TJ, et al. 2002. Color opponency is an efficient representation of spectral properties in natural scenes. Vision Research 42(17):2095-2103.
30. Long F, Purves D. 2003. Natural scene statistics as the universal basis for color context effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(25): 15190-15193.
31. Long F, Yang ZY, Purves D. 2006. Spectral statistics in natural scene predict hue, saturation, and brightness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:6013-6018.
32. Lotto B, Purves D. 2000. An empirical explanation of color contrast. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97:12834-12839.
33. Nolfi S, Floreano D. 2000. Evolutionary robotics: The biology, intelligence, and technology of self-organizing machines. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Nolfi S, Marocco D. 2000. Evolving visually-guided robots able to discriminate between different landmarks. In J-A Meyer, A Berthoz, D Floreano, HL Roitblat and SW Wilson (Eds.) From Animals to Animats 6. Proceedings of the VI International Conference on Stimulation of Adaptive Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 413-419.
35. Nolfi S, Marocco D. 2002. Evolving robots able to visually discriminate between objects with different size. International Journal of Robotics and Automation 4:163-170.
36. Olshausen BA, Field DJ. 1996. Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381:607-609.
37. Pfeifer R, Scheier C. 1999. Understanding intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. Potetz B, Lee T. 2003. Statistical correlations between two-dimensional images and three-dimensional structures in natural scenes. Journal of Optical Society of America 20:1292-1303.
39. Purves D, Lotto RB. 2003. Why we see what we do: An empirical theory of vision Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
40. Purves D, Williams SM, Nundy S, Lotto RB. 2004. Perceiving the intensity of light. Psychology Review 111:142-158.
41. Rao RPN, Olshausen BA, Lewichi MS. (Eds) 2002. Probabilistic models of the brain: Perception and neural function Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Salomon R. 1996. Increasing adaptivity through evolution strategies. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, pp 411-420.
43. Smith TMC. 1997. Blurred vision: Simulation-reality transfer of a visually guided robot. Evolutionary robotics: First European Workshop, EvoRob'98. pp 152-164.
44. Wertheimer M. 1923/1938. A source book of gestalt psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
45. Wyss R, König P, Verschure PFMJ. 2006. A model of the ventral visual system based on temporal stability and local memory. PLoS Biology 4:836-843.
46. Yang Z, Purves D. 2003. A statistical explanation of visual space. Nature Neuroscience. 6:632-640.
47. Yang Z, Purves D. 2004. The statistical structure of natural light patterns determines perceived light intensity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101:8745-8750.