An ideal observer model for identifying the reference frame of objects

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24: 25th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2011, NIPS 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Austerweil, Joseph L ^a   Friesen, Abram L ^b   Griffiths, Thomas L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of Washington   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN STATISTICS; IDEAL OBSERVER MODELS; IMAGE FRAMES; MODEL-BASED OPC; MULTIPLE IMAGE; MULTIPLE REFERENCES; NON-PARAMETRIC BAYESIAN; NOVEL METHODOLOGY; REFERENCE FRAME;

EID: 85162305126     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. D. G. Lowe. Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision, volume 2, pages 1150-1157, 1999.
2. D. R. Martin, C. C. Fowlkes, and J. Malik. Learning to detect natural image boundaries using local brightness, color, and texture cues. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 26(5):530-549, 2005.
3. G. E. Hinton and R. R. Salakhutdinov. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science, 313:504-507, 2006.
4. O. G. Selfridge and U. Neisser. Pattern recognition by machine. In Computers and thought, pages 235-267. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.
5. S. E. Palmer. Reference frames in the perception of shape and orientation. In Object perception: Structure and Process, pages 121-163. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1989.
6. M. Wiser. The role of intrinsic axes in shape recognition. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pages 184-186, San Mateo, CA, 1981. Morgan Kaufman.
7. E. Mach. The analysis of sensations. Open Court, Chicago, 1914/1959.
8. I. Rock. Orientation and form. Academic Press, New York, 1973.
9. P. Jolicoeur. The time to name disoriented natural objects. Memory & Cognition, 13:289-303, 1985.
10. M. J. Tarr, P.Williams, W. G. Hayward, and I. Gauthier. Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1(4):275-277, 1998.
11. I. Rock, J. DiVita, and R. Barbeito. The effect on form perception of change of orientation in the third dimension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7:719-732, 1981.
12. S. E. Palmer. What makes triangles point: Local and global effects in configurations of ambiguous triangles. Cognitive Psychology, 12:285-305, 1980.
13. S. E. Palmer. The role of symmetry in shape perception. Acta Psychologica, 59:67-90, 1985.
14. F. Attneave. Triangles as ambiguous figures. American Journal of Psychology, 81:447-453, 1968.
15. S. E. Palmer and N. M. Bucher. Configural effects in perceived pointing of ambiguous triangles. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7(1):88-114, 1981.
16. J. Pitman. Combinatorial Stochastic Processes. 2002. Notes for Saint Flour Summer School.
17. R. M. Neal. Markov chain sampling methods for Dirichlet process mixture models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 9:249-265, 2000.
18. S. E. Palmer. Vision Science. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
19. E. Sudderth and M. I. Jordan. Shared segmentation of natural scenes using dependent Pitman-Yor processes. In D. Koller, D. Schuurmans, Y. Bengio, and L. Bottou, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21, pages 1585-1592. 2009.
20. J. L. Austerweil and T. L. Griffiths. Learning invariant features using the transformed Indian buffet process. In J. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, J. Shawe-Taylor, R.S. Zemel, and A. Culotta, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23, pages 82-90. 2010.