Back

Connecting the dots - Recognition of artificial and natural shapes relies on representing points of high information

Schmidtmann, G.; Baker, N.; Lande, K. J.; Schmidt, F.

2025-11-17 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.11.17.688832 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Physiological and psychophysical evidence suggests that the visual system represents object outlines based on prominent curvature features, in particular regions of extreme curvature (such as convex maxima and concave minima). Curvature extrema often coincide with points of high information content ("surprisal," in information-theoretic terms). However, this relationship is only correlational. To date, no study has directly compared the role of curvature extrema with the role of surprisal itself. Does the visual system selectively encode curvature extrema because they tend to be informative--because they are heuristic proxies for high-surprisal points along the contour--or does it directly encode informative points that happen often to be located at curvature extrema? We addressed this question in a series of shape-matching experiments, testing how curvature extrema and information content contribute to recognition. Observers (N = 7) matched a smooth test shape to one of two re-scaled shapes (target and distractor) constructed by connecting, with straight lines, points corresponding to (i) curvature maxima, (ii) both curvature maxima and minima, or (iii) points of maximum surprisal. A baseline condition used identical test and target shapes. Stimuli included artificial shapes composed of compound radial frequency patterns and natural shapes (animal outlines), the latter enabling us to disentangle curvature and information effects by restricting sampled points. Recognition performance was higher for natural than artificial shapes (95% vs. [~]86%). Performance for shapes containing a few points of high information matched performance on trials containing all curvature extrema and baseline trials. It also exceeded performance for shapes with curvature maxima alone (65% vs. [~]90%). These findings suggest that shape representation emphasizes features with high informational content rather than curvature extrema per se.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Vision
92 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.8%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 12%
7.2%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 5%
6.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
5
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 17%
4.9%
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 16%
4.2%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
9
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.6%
10
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.4%
11
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
119 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.1%
12
Journal of Neurophysiology
263 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
13
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
14
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
15
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 26%
0.9%
16
Vision Research
26 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
17
Psychological Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
18
Neuroscience of Consciousness
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
19
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
20
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.5%