The role of sensory uncertainty in simple contour integration.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101238922 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1553-7358 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 1553734X NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS Comput Biol Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science, [2005]-

Perception* ; Uncertainty*; Bayes Theorem ; Form Perception ; Probability ; Reproducibility of Results

Perceptual organization is the process of grouping scene elements into whole entities. A classic example is contour integration, in which separate line segments are perceived as continuous contours. Uncertainty in such grouping arises from scene ambiguity and sensory noise. Some classic Gestalt principles of contour integration, and more broadly, of perceptual organization, have been re-framed in terms of Bayesian inference, whereby the observer computes the probability that the whole entity is present. Previous studies that proposed a Bayesian interpretation of perceptual organization, however, have ignored sensory uncertainty, despite the fact that accounting for the current level of perceptual uncertainty is one of the main signatures of Bayesian decision making. Crucially, trial-by-trial manipulation of sensory uncertainty is a key test to whether humans perform near-optimal Bayesian inference in contour integration, as opposed to using some manifestly non-Bayesian heuristic. We distinguish between these hypotheses in a simplified form of contour integration, namely judging whether two line segments separated by an occluder are collinear. We manipulate sensory uncertainty by varying retinal eccentricity. A Bayes-optimal observer would take the level of sensory uncertainty into account-in a very specific way-in deciding whether a measured offset between the line segments is due to non-collinearity or to sensory noise. We find that people deviate slightly but systematically from Bayesian optimality, while still performing "probabilistic computation" in the sense that they take into account sensory uncertainty via a heuristic rule. Our work contributes to an understanding of the role of sensory uncertainty in higher-order perception.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Nov 30;107(48):20834-9. (PMID: 21076036)
Behav Brain Sci. 2011 Aug;34(4):169-88; disuccsion 188-231. (PMID: 21864419)
Psychol Rev. 2019 Jan;126(1):89-132. (PMID: 30335411)
Vision Res. 1995 Jan;35(1):51-8. (PMID: 7839609)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Oct;16(10):511-8. (PMID: 22981359)
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Apr;9(4):578-85. (PMID: 16547513)
J Neurosci. 1999 Oct 1;19(19):8560-72. (PMID: 10493756)
Vis Neurosci. 2009 Jan-Feb;26(1):109-21. (PMID: 19216819)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Jul 27;14(7):e1006110. (PMID: 30052625)
Nat Neurosci. 2013 Sep;16(9):1170-8. (PMID: 23955561)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Apr 18;15(4):e1006465. (PMID: 30998675)
Neuroimage. 2014 Jan 1;84:971-85. (PMID: 24018303)
Percept Psychophys. 2001 Oct;63(7):1171-82. (PMID: 11766942)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2019 Jul 8;15(7):e1006681. (PMID: 31283765)
PLoS One. 2007 Sep 26;2(9):e943. (PMID: 17895984)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Sep;14(9):425-32. (PMID: 20705502)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(2):e1002927. (PMID: 23468613)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2017 Jun;21(6):425-433. (PMID: 28476348)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Mar;14(3):119-30. (PMID: 20153683)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Feb 21;109(8):3178-83. (PMID: 22315400)
Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451-82. (PMID: 21126183)
Psychol Bull. 2012 May;138(3):389-414. (PMID: 22545686)
Neuroimage. 2009 Jul 15;46(4):1004-17. (PMID: 19306932)
J Vis. 2002;2(4):324-53. (PMID: 12678582)
Psychol Rev. 2016 Jul;123(4):452-80. (PMID: 27177259)
Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):129-38. (PMID: 13310708)
Top Cogn Sci. 2015 Apr;7(2):217-29. (PMID: 25898807)
Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Jun;15(3):465-94. (PMID: 18567246)
Behav Brain Sci. 2018 Feb 27;:1-107. (PMID: 29485020)
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e40216. (PMID: 22768258)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995 Jul 3;92(14):6469-73. (PMID: 7604015)
J Vis. 2010 Dec 31;10(14):. (PMID: 21196508)
Vis Neurosci. 2009 Jan-Feb;26(1):147-55. (PMID: 19193251)
Nat Commun. 2017 Jul 26;8(1):138. (PMID: 28743932)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 10;110(50):20332-7. (PMID: 24272938)
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42. (PMID: 9176953)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Jun 19;10(6):e1003661. (PMID: 24945142)
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Nov 13;14(11):e1006572. (PMID: 30422974)
Curr Biol. 2004 Feb 3;14(3):257-62. (PMID: 14761661)
Nat Neurosci. 2011 Nov 20;15(1):146-54. (PMID: 22101645)
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2014;37:205-20. (PMID: 25032495)
Neural Comput. 2018 Dec;30(12):3327-3354. (PMID: 30314423)
J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2003 Jul;20(7):1434-48. (PMID: 12868647)
Neuron. 2016 Dec 21;92(6):1398-1411. (PMID: 27916454)
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 27;12(1):e0170466. (PMID: 28129323)
PLoS Biol. 2015 Feb 24;13(2):e1002073. (PMID: 25710328)
Nat Neurosci. 2012 Jan 08;15(2):194-6. (PMID: 22231428)
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6. (PMID: 9176952)
Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):429-33. (PMID: 11807554)
Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jun 05;14(7):926-32. (PMID: 21642976)

R01 EY020958 United States EY NEI NIH HHS; R01 EY026927 United States EY NEI NIH HHS

Date Created: 20201130 Date Completed: 20210129 Latest Revision: 20211208

20240105

PMC7728286

10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006308

33253195