Seminars

Object recognition relies on the complex visual representations in cortical areas at the top of the ventral stream hierarchy. While these are thought to be derived from low-level stages of visual processing, this has not been shown, yet. Here, I describe the results of two projects exploring the contributions of primary visual cortex (V1) processing to object recognition using artificial neural networks (ANNs). First, we developed hundreds of ANN-based V1 models and evaluated how their single neurons approximate those in the macaque V1. We found that, for some models, single neurons in intermediate layers are similar to their biological counterparts, and that the distributions of their response properties approximately match those in V1. Furthermore, we observed that models that better matched macaque V1 were also more aligned with human behavior, suggesting that object recognition is derived from low-level. Motivated by these results, we then studied how an ANN’s robustness to image perturbations relates to its ability to predict V1 responses. Despite their high performance in object recognition tasks, ANNs can be fooled by imperceptibly small, explicitly crafted perturbations. We observed that ANNs that better predicted V1 neuronal activity were also more robust to adversarial attacks. Inspired by this, we developed VOneNets, a new class of hybrid ANN vision models. Each VOneNet contains a fixed neural network front-end that simulates primate V1 followed by a neural network back-end adapted from current computer vision models. After training, VOneNets were substantially more robust, outperforming state-of-the-art methods on a set of perturbations. While current neural network architectures are arguably brain-inspired, these results demonstrate that more precisely mimicking just one stage of the primate visual system leads to new gains in computer vision applications and results in better models of the primate ventral stream and object recognition behavior.

Not all individuals are equally competent at recognizing the faces they interact with. Revealing how the brains of different individuals support variations in this ability is a crucial step to develop an understanding of real-world human visual behaviour. In this talk, I will present findings from a large high-density EEG dataset (>100k trials of participants processing various stimulus categories) and computational approaches which aimed to characterise the brain representations behind real-world proficiency of “super-recognizers”—individuals at the top of face recognition ability spectrum. Using decoding analysis of time-resolved EEG patterns, we predicted with high precision the trial-by-trial activity of super-recognizers participants, and showed that evidence for face recognition ability variations is disseminated along early, intermediate and late brain processing steps. Computational modeling of the underlying brain activity uncovered two representational signatures supporting higher face recognition ability—i) mid-level visual & ii) semantic computations. Both components were dissociable in brain processing-time (the first around the N170, the last around the P600) and levels of computations (the first emerging from mid-level layers of visual Convolutional Neural Networks, the last from a semantic model characterising sentence descriptions of images). I will conclude by presenting ongoing analyses from a well-known case of acquired prosopagnosia (PS) using similar computational modeling of high-density EEG activity.

The last quarter century has provided extensive evidence that some regions of the human cortex are selectively engaged in processing a single specific domain of information, from faces, places, and bodies to language, music, and other people’s thoughts. This work dovetails with earlier theories in cognitive science highlighting domain specificity in human cognition, development, and evolution. But many questions remain unanswered about even the clearest cases of domain specificity in the brain, the selective engagement of the FFA, PPA, and EBA in the perception of faces, places, and bodies, respectively. First, these claims lack precision, saying little about what is computed and how, and relying on human judgements to decide what counts as a face, place, or body. Second, they provide no account of the reliably varying responses of these regions across different “preferred” images, or across different “nonpreferred” images for each category. Third, the category selectivity of each region is vulnerable to refutation if any of the vast set of as-yet-untested nonpreferred images turns out to produce a stronger response than preferred images for that region. Fourth, and most fundamentally, they provide no account of why, from a computational point of view, brains should exhibit this striking degree of functional specificity in the first place, and why we should have the particular visual specializations we do, for faces, places, and bodies, but not (apparently) for food or snakes. The advent of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to model visual processing in the ventral pathway has opened up many opportunities to address these long-standing questions in new ways. I will describe ongoing efforts in our lab to harness CNNs to do just that.

Scientists have worked to recreate human vision in computers for the past 50 years. But how much about human vision do we actually know? And can the brain be useful in furthering computer vision? This talk will take a look at the similarities and differences between (modern) computer vision and human vision, as well as the important crossovers, collaborations, and applications that define the interface between computational neuroscience and computer vision. If you want to know more about how the brain sees (really sees), how computer vision developments are inspired by the brain, or how to apply AI to neuroscience, this talk is for you.