Back

Weight illusions explained by efficient coding based on correlated natural statistics

Bays, P.

2024-11-12 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.02.09.579650 bioRxiv
Show abstract

In our everyday experience, the sizes and weights of objects we encounter are strongly correlated. When objects are lifted, visual information about size can be combined with haptic feedback about weight, and a naive application of Bayes rule predicts that the perceived weight of larger objects should be exaggerated and smaller objects underestimated. Instead it is the smaller of two objects of equal weight that is perceived as heavier, a phenomenon termed the Size-Weight Illusion (SWI). Here we provide a normative explanation of the SWI based on principles of efficient coding, which dictate that stimulus properties should be encoded with a fidelity that depends on how frequently those properties are encountered in the environment. We show that the precision with which human observers estimate object weight varies as a function of both mass and volume in a manner consistent with the estimated joint distribution of those properties among everyday objects. We further show that participants seemingly "anti-Bayesian" biases (the SWI) are quantitatively predicted by Bayesian estimation when taking into account the gradient of discriminability induced by efficient encoding. The related Material-Weight Illusion (MWI) can also be accounted for on these principles, with surface material providing a visual cue that changes expectations about object density. The efficient coding model is further compatible with a wide range of previous observations, including the adaptability of weight illusions and properties of "non-illusory" objects. The framework is general and predicts perceptual biases and variability in any sensory properties that are correlated in the natural environment.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.