Pattern Recognition

I. What is pattern recognition? II. Template Models III. Feature Models IV. Top-Down & Bottom-Up processing V. Neural Network Models VI. Prototype Models VII. Facial Recognition VI. Conclusions

I. What is Pattern Recognition

A. Definition: A process of identifying a stimulus. Recognizing a correspondence between a stimulus and information in permanent (LTS) memory.

I. What is Pattern Recognition

B. In the context of the Atkinson and Shiffrin Model

Input

Sensory Store

ShortTerm Store
Control Processes rehearsal coding retrieval strategies

LongTerm Store

Response Output

Page 1

I. What is Pattern Recognition

C. This process is often accomplished with incomplete or ambiguous information.

D. Many variations on a pattern may be recognized as the same object or class of objects.

Page 2

Turing test (used by Yahoo, Hotmail, and ebay)

F. Pattern recognition that is difficult for machines is easy for people.

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mind! Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?
[This demonstration is food for thought. The psychological principles it espouses are only partly correct. See Reicher (1969)]

II. Template Model

A. Basic Assumptions 1) Memory representation is a holistic unanalyzed entity (a template). 2) An input pattern is compared to the stored representation. 3) Identity is determined by selection of the template with the greatest amount of overlap.

Page 3

II. Template Model

B. Schematic of a Template System
Stimulus

Brightness Detector

Templates

Light Source

II. Template Model (cont)

C. Template systems in action

Template Model (cont)

D. Problems with template models 1. Intolerance to deviations 2. Large number of templates required 3. Cannot support similarity-difference judgments

Page 4

III. Feature Theories

A. Basic Assumptions 1. The stored representation is a description of past inputs in terms of list of attributes or features. 2. Inputs are broken down into a small list of constituent features. 3. Identity is determined by selecting the feature list most similar to the input.

III. Feature Theories

B. Schematic of a Feature Model

Stimulus

III. Feature Theories (cont)

C. Supporting Evidence 1. Hubel & Wiesel (1962): Recorded electrical activity in the visual cortex of the cat.

Page 5

Hubel & Wiesel (1962) Results: specific cells respond to specific visual features.

III. Feature Theories (cont)

B. Supporting Evidence (cont) 2. Letter recognition times Gibson, Shapiro, & Yonas (1968)
Step 1: Analyze letters in terms of a small set of features. Step 2: Give subjects a reaction test two determine if two letters are the same or different. e.g. G vs.. W RT = 458 msec P vs.. R RT = 571 msec Step 3: Compare the clustering of letters in the reaction time task to the similarities in features.

Step 1: Feature Analysis of Letters

Page 6

Step 2: Letter Groupings based on RT

III. Feature Theories (cont)

D. Criticisms of Feature Theories 1. Importance of Context

2. Importance of Arrangement

IV. Top-Down vs. Bottom-up Processing

comprehension

Bottom Up (data driven)

phrase processing word processing letter processing feature processing

Top Down (conceptually driven)

Page 7

IV. Top-Down vs. Bottom-up Processing

In Control of Attention (Bushman & Miller, 2007) implanted electrodes in monkeys the monkeys were trained to search for a target in a visual display the researchers measured reaction time and recorded firing rates in parietal cortex (25 electrodes) (visualsensory information) and the prefrontal cortex (25 electrodes).

IV. Top-Down vs. Bottom-up Processing

Bushman & Miller (continued) Bottom up: visual pop-out

Sensory neurons (parietal) responded first

Page 8

IV. Top-Down vs. Bottom-up Processing

Bushman & Miller (continued)

Top down (visual search)

prefrontal cortex responded first

IV. Top-Down vs. Bottom-up Processing

Conclusion: Button up processing signals arise from the sensory cortex. Top down processing signals begin in the frontal cortex.

V. Neural Network Model of Pattern Recognition

A. Interactive Activation Model

(McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981)

Word Analysis

Incorporates top-down processing from the word level to the letter level.

Excitatory connections:
Inhibitory connections:

Letter Analysis

Feature Analysis

Visual Input

Page 9

Simplied view of the Network of Connections

Excitatory connections:
Inhibitory connections:

Word Level CAT CHAIR THE

Letter Level

Feature Level

Input

More Complete view of the Network of Connections:

B. Supporting Evidence:
The word/letter effect Reicher (1969) Stimulus letter series word Example h csah cash Test Percent Correct 78 h/t csah/csat 76 89 cash/cast

Page 10

VI. Prototype Theory

A. Basic Assumptions 1. The stored representation is a Prototype: an abstraction of the typical or best example of an object. examples: chairs, cars, and trucks 2. Inputs are broken down into feature lists. 3. Recognition is process of comparing the features of the input to the features of prototypes, and selecting the best fit.

VI. Prototype Theory (cont.)

B. Evidence for Prototype Theory Solso & McCarthy (1981) face recognition

75%

50%

Prototype 100%

25%

0%

VI. Prototype Theory (cont.)

Solso & McCarthy (1981): results
5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 100 75 50 25 Old Items New Items

Old
Confidence

New

Percent Overlap with Prototype

Page 11

VI. Prototype Theory (cont.)

C. Prototype Theory and attractiveness 1) goodness of category membership can be defined with respect to the prototype. 2) good category members may be seen as more attractive, or desirable, than poor category membership

C. Prototype Theory and attractiveness (cont.)

Example: attractive faces are average (Langlois & Roggman, 1990) Stimulus set: individual faces composite faces containing 2 - 32 faces.

Examples of composite faces:

Number in composite 4

16

32

Page 12

Rated attractiveness
Number of faces 1 2 4 8 16 32 average rating 2.51 2.87 2.84 3.03 3.06 3.25

VII. Facial Recognition:

Why Barack Obama is Black (Halberstadt et al, 2011) Hypodescent: association of mixed race individuals as belonging to the minority race. Hypothesis: individuals learn to minority groups later than majority groups, so they learn to focus attention on features that distinguish the groups. Increased attention to distinctive (distinguishing) features leads to overclassification in the new group.

Why Barack Obama is Black

(Halberstadt et al, 2011)

Evidence: Experiment 1 Participants: Caucasians (New Zealanders) of Chinese decent (raised in China or Asian Pacific regions). Individuals performed a speeded classification of faces that were morphed blends of Chinese and Caucasian faces:

Page 13

Why Barack Obama is Black

(Halberstadt et al, 2011)

Experiment 2 Participants: 75% Caucasian, 25 % other Procedure: participants learned to classify faces into different (arbitrary) groups. majority faces classified 9 times minority faces classified 3 times

Why Barack Obama is Black

(Halberstadt et al, 2011)

Results Experiment 1 Percent of ambiguous faces rated as Chinese: Chinese Participants: 44 % Caucasian Participants: 49 % Experiment 2 Percent of ambiguous faces rated as Bs A faces majority: 40 % B faces majority: 36 % Conclusions: Biracial classifications are based on learning history. Distinctive racial features receive greater attention if they are learned later in life.

Why Barack Obama is Black

(Halberstadt et al, 2011)

Conclusions: Biracial classifications are based on learning history. Distinctive racial features receive greater attention if they are learned later in life.

Page 14

VII. Facial Recognition:

A special problem for theories of pattern recognition: A. Different set of rules? (Example: object vs. facial recognition). Yin (1970), and Rock (1974) demonstrated that facial recognition is more easily impaired by inversion than is object recognition.

Who is this?

Page 15

Page 16

VII. Facial Recognition (cont)

B. Different Neurological Structures? Dissociation between loss of object recognition (visual agnosia) and face recognition in stroke victims. (e.g., Msocovithc, Winocur, & Behrman, 1997)

VI. Conclusions on Pattern Recognition

A. Template and Feature Models are inadequate B. Context and top-down processing are very important C. Neural Networks can explain top down processes. D. Important role of prototypes E. Challenge of explaining facial recognition

Page 17