Generative and discriminative recurrence employ opposing strategies for robust vision
Schmitt, L.-M.; Koot, M.; Heilbron, M.; de Lange, F.
Show abstract
Recurrence is thought to enhance the robustness of biological vision, but how it achieves this feat is largely unknown. Perceptual robustness can be implemented through either lateral connections supporting local integration within a processing stage or feedback connections drawing on broader context from higher stages, and through either a discriminative objective optimising task-relevant classification or a generative objective learning to reconstruct the causes of visual input. But do these different types of recurrence engage distinct computational strategies? As this question is difficult to test in vivo, we endowed convolutional neural networks with varying recurrent architectures and training objectives, and evaluated the consequences for internal representations and behaviour across noise levels. Two distinct computational strategies emerged. Generative feedback followed a reductionist strategy, with representations becoming lower-dimensional through denoising, achieving robustness at moderate noise levels without noise training. Both discriminative lateral and feedback recurrence followed an expansionist strategy, increasing dimensionality to sharpen discriminability without denoising, but requiring noise training to achieve robustness. These dissociable signatures reflect fundamentally different computational mechanisms of robust vision and provide testable predictions for which form of recurrence the brain employs.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Leveraging prior concept learning improves ability to generalize from few examples in computational models of human object recognition 95%
- Unsupervised learning and clustered connectivity enhance reinforcement learning in spiking neural networks 94%
- Hierarchical sparse coding of objects in deep convolutional neural networks 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.