↓ Skip to main content

Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks: A Better Model of Biological Object Recognition

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
357 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recurrent Convolutional Neural Networks: A Better Model of Biological Object Recognition
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01551
Pubmed ID
Authors

Courtney J. Spoerer, Patrick McClure, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte

Abstract

Feedforward neural networks provide the dominant model of how the brain performs visual object recognition. However, these networks lack the lateral and feedback connections, and the resulting recurrent neuronal dynamics, of the ventral visual pathway in the human and non-human primate brain. Here we investigate recurrent convolutional neural networks with bottom-up (B), lateral (L), and top-down (T) connections. Combining these types of connections yields four architectures (B, BT, BL, and BLT), which we systematically test and compare. We hypothesized that recurrent dynamics might improve recognition performance in the challenging scenario of partial occlusion. We introduce two novel occluded object recognition tasks to test the efficacy of the models, digit clutter (where multiple target digits occlude one another) and digit debris (where target digits are occluded by digit fragments). We find that recurrent neural networks outperform feedforward control models (approximately matched in parametric complexity) at recognizing objects, both in the absence of occlusion and in all occlusion conditions. Recurrent networks were also found to be more robust to the inclusion of additive Gaussian noise. Recurrent neural networks are better in two respects: (1) they are more neurobiologically realistic than their feedforward counterparts; (2) they are better in terms of their ability to recognize objects, especially under challenging conditions. This work shows that computer vision can benefit from using recurrent convolutional architectures and suggests that the ubiquitous recurrent connections in biological brains are essential for task performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 355 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 27%
Researcher 51 14%
Student > Master 51 14%
Student > Bachelor 43 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 4%
Other 39 11%
Unknown 64 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 106 30%
Computer Science 63 18%
Psychology 35 10%
Engineering 31 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 4%
Other 24 7%
Unknown 83 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,165,231
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,324
of 33,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,107
of 320,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#105
of 583 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,424 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 583 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.