The Mixture of Bernoulli Experts: A theory to quantify reliance on cues in dichotomous perceptual decisions

Journal of Vision

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2009, Pages

  Backus, Benjamin T ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Ambiguous figure; Appearance; Bayes; Bayes rule; Bistability; Cue combination; Cue learning; Cue recruitment; Machine learning; Naive bayes; Perceptual dichotomy; Sensory fusion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BAYES THEOREM; DECISION MAKING; DEPTH PERCEPTION; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; VISION; VISUAL FIELD;

BAYES THEOREM; CUES; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VISION DISPARITY; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 58249120649     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15347362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1167/9.1.6     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Attneave, F. (1971). Multistability in perception. Scientific American, 225, 63-71.
2. Backus, B. T., & Banks, M. S. (1999). Estimator reliability and distance scaling in stereoscopic slant perception. Perception, 28, 217-242.
3. Backus, B. T., & Haijiang, Q. (2007). Competition between newly recruited and pre-existing visual cues during the construction of visual appearance. Vision Research, 47, 919-924.
4. Barlow, H. (1990). Conditions for versatile learning, Helmholtz's unconscious inference, and the task of perception. Vision Research, 30, 1561-1571.
5. Bellingham, W. P., Gillette-Bellingham, K., & Kehoe, E. J. (1985). Summation and configuration in patterning schedules with the rat and rabbit. Animal Learning & Behavior, 13, 152-164.
6. Bradley, D. C., Chang, G. C., & Andersen, R. A. (1998). Encoding of three-dimensional structure-from-motion by primate area MT neurons. Nature, 392, 714-717.
7. Brainard, D. H., & Freeman, W. T. (1997). Bayesian color constancy. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 14, 1393-1411.
8. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9. Clark, J. J., & Yuille, A. L. (1990). Data fusion for sensory information processing systems. Boston: Kluwer.
10. Clemen, R. T., & Winkler, R. L. (1999). Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 19, 187-203.
11. Coombs, C. H., Dawes, R. M., & Tversky, A. (1970). The theory of signal detectability (Ch. 6). In Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction (pp. 165-201). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12. Dietterich, T. G. (2002). Machine learning for sequential data: A review. In T. Caelli (Ed.), Structural, syntactic, and statistical pattern recognition; lecture notes in computer science (vol. 2396, pp. 15-30). London: Springer-Verlag.
13. Dodd, J. V., Krug, K., Cumming, B. G., & Parker, A. J. (2001). Perceptually bistable three-dimensional figures evoke high choice probabilities in cortical area MT. Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 4809-4821.
14. Domingos, P., & Pazzani, M. (1996). Beyond independence: Conditions for the optimality of the simple bayesian classifier. Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML).
15. Dosher, B. A., Sperling, G., & Wurst, S. A. (1986). Tradeoffs between stereopsis and proximity luminance covariance as determinants of perceived 3D structure. Vision Research, 26, 973-990.
16. Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der psychophysik. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf und Härtel.
17. Feldman, J. (2001). Bayesian contour integration. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1171-1182.
18. Feldman, J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2006). Individuation of visual objects over time. Cognition, 99, 131-165.
19. Fine, I., & Jacobs, R. A. (2002). Comparing perceptual learning tasks: A review. Journal of Vision, 2(2):5, 190-203, http://journalofvision.org/2/2/5/, doi:10.1167/2.2.5.
20. Finney, D. J. (1971). Probit analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21. Foster, D., & Vohra, R. (1999). Regret in the on-line decision problem. Games and Economic Behavior, 29, 7-36.
22. Gaddum, J. H. (1933). Reports on biological standards. III. Methods of biological assay depending on a quantal response. Medical Research Council Special Report Series (No. 183). London: H.M. Stationary Office.
23. Gallistel, C. R. (1990). The organization of learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24. Geisler, W. S. (1989). Sequential ideal-observer analysis of visual discriminations. Psychological Review, 96, 267-314.
25. Geisler, W. S., & Kersten, D. (2002). Illusions, perception and Bayes. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 508-510.
26. Geisler, W. S., Perry, J. S., Super, B. J., & Gallogly, D. P. (2001). Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance. Vision Research, 41, 711-724.
27. Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.
28. Good, I. J. (1950). Probability and the weighing of evidence. London: Charles Griffin.
29. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Krieger.
30. Haijiang, Q., Saunders, J. A., Stone, R. W., & Backus, B. T. (2006). Demonstration of cue recruitment: Change in visual appearance by means of Pavlovian conditioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 483-486.
31. Hand, D. J., & Yu, K. (2001). Idiot's Bayes - Not so stupid after all? International Statistical Review, 69, 385-398.
32. Hebb, D. O. (1949). Organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
33. Helmholtz, H. v. (1910/1925). Treatise on physiological optics (vol. III, J.P.C. Southall, transl. from German). New York: Optical Society of America.
34. Herrnstein, R. J. (2000). In H. Rachlin & D. I. Laibson (Eds.), The Matching Law: Papers in Psychology and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Hillis, J. M., Watt, S. J., Landy, M. S., & Banks, M. S. (2004). Slant from texture and disparity cues: Optimal cue combination. Journal of Vision, 4(12):1, 967-992, http://journalofvision.org/ 4/12/1/, doi:10.1167/4.12.1.
36. Ho, Y. X., Landy, M. S., & Maloney, L. T. (2008). Conjoint measurement of gloss and surface texture. Psychological Science, 19, 196-204.
37. Ho, Y. X., Maloney, L. T., & Landy, M. S. (2007). The effect of viewpoint on perceived visual roughness. Journal of Vision, 7(1):1, 1-16, http://journalofvision.org/7/1/1/, doi:10.1167/7.1.1.
38. Hochberg, J. E., & Krantz, D. (2004). Brunswik and Bayes: A review of "The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, Applications" by Kenneth R. Hammond and Thomas R. Stewart (2001). Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 49, 785-787.
39. Hogervorst, M. A., & Eagle, R. A. (1998). Biases in three-dimensional structure-from-motion arise from noise in the early visual system. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265, 1587-1593.
40. Hummel, R. A., & Landy, M. S. (1988). A statistical viewpoint on the theory of evidence. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 10, 235-247.
41. Johnston, E. B., Cumming, B. G., & Parker, A. J. (1993). Integration of depth modules: Stereopsis and texture. Vision Research, 33, 813-826.
42. Kersten, D., Mamassian, P., & Yuille, A. (2004). Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 271-304.
43. Knill, D., & Richards, W. (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. London: Cambridge University Press.
44. Knill, D. C. (2003). Mixture models and the probabilistic structure of depth cues. Vision Research, 43, 831-854.
45. Kohavi, R. I. (1996). Scaling up the accuracy of naive-Bayes classifiers: A decision-tree hybrid. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining.
46. Landy, M. S., Maloney, L. T., Johnston, E. B., & Young, M. (1995). Measurement and modeling of depth cue combination: In defense of weak fusion. Vision Research, 35, 389-412.
47. Leopold, D. A., & Logothetis, N. K. (1999). Multistable phenomena: Changing views in perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 254-264.
48. Lewis, D. D. (1998). Naive Bayes at forty: The independence assumption in information retrieval. Paper presented at the Tenth European Conference on Machine Learning, Berlin.
49. Lindley, D. V., Tversky, A., & Brown, R. V. (1979). On the reconciliation of probability assessments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: General, 142, 146-180.
50. Long, G. M., Toppino, T. C., & Kostenbauder, J. F. (1983). As the cube turns: Evidence for two processes in the perception of a dynamic reversible figure. Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 29-38.
51. Mamassian, P., & Landy, M. S. (1998). Observer biases in the 3D interpretation of line drawings. Vision Research, 38, 2817-2832.
52. Mamassian, P., & Landy, M. S. (2001). Interaction of visual prior constraints. Vision Research, 41, 2653-2668.
53. Michel, M. M., & Jacobs, R. A. (2007). Parameter learning but not structure learning: A Bayesian network model of constraints on early perceptual learning. Journal of Vision, 7(1):4, 1-18, http://journalofvision.org/7/1/4/, doi:10.1167/7.1.4.
54. Morris, P. A. (1983). An axiomatic approach to expert resolution. Management Science, 29, 24-32.
55. Necker, L. A. (1832). Observations on some remarkable optical phenomena seen in Switzerland; and on an optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid. London and Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1, 329-337.
56. Osherson, D., Shafir, E., Krantz, D. H., & Smith, E. E. (1997). Probability bootstrapping: Improving prediction by fitting extensional models to knowledgeable but incoherent probability judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 1-8.
57. Pelli, D. G., & Farell, B. (1999). Why use noise? Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 16, 647-653.
58. Petrov, A. A., Dosher, B. A., & Lu, Z. L. (2005). The dynamics of perceptual learning: An incremental reweighting model. Psychological Review, 112, 715-743.
59. Sabes, P. N., & Jordan, M. I. (1996). Reinforcement learning by probability matching. Paper presented at the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Cambridge, MA.
60. Savage, L. J. (1972). Foundations of statistics. New York: Courier Dover Publications.
61. Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62. Shafer, G. (1981). Constructive probability. Synthese, 48, 1-60.
63. Smith, J. E., & von Winterfeldt, D. (2004). Decision analysis in management science. Management Science, 50, 561-574.
64. Stewart, T. R., & Lusk, C. M. (1994). 7 components of judgmental forecasting skill - Implications for research and the improvement of forecasts. Journal of Forecasting, 13, 579-599.
65. Swanson, W. H., & Birch, E. E. (1992). Extracting thresholds from noisy psychophysical data. Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 409-422.
66. van Ee, R., Adams, W. J., & Mamassian, P. (2003). Bayesian modeling of cue interaction: Bistability in stereoscopic slant perception. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision, 20, 1398-1406.
67. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2003). Latent class models for classification. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 41, 531-537.
68. Vulkan, N. (2000). An economist's perspective on probability matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14, 101-118.
69. Weiss, Y., Simoncelli, E. P., & Adelson, E. H. (2002). Motion illusions as optimal percepts. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 598-604.
70. Wichmann, F. A., & Hill, N. J. (2001). The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1293-1313.
71. Winkler, R. L. (1968). The consensus of subjective probability distributions. Management Science, 15, B61-B75.
72. Woodbury, C. B. (1943). The learning of stimulus patterns by dogs. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 35, 29-40.
73. Young, M. J., Landy, M. S., & Maloney, L. T. (1993). A perturbation analysis of depth perception from combinations of texture and motion cues. Vision Research, 33, 2685-2696.
74. Zhang, H. (2004). The optimality of Naïve Bayes. Proceedings of the 17th International FLAIRS Conference (Florida, USA). Menlo Park, California: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
75. Zhu, M., & Lu, A. Y. (2004). The counter-intuitive non-informative prior for the Bernoulli family. Journal of Statistics Education, 12, 1-10.