BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Daniel Harari

Daniel Harari appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computer VisionArtificial IntelligenceNeurons and CognitionMachine LearningComputation and Language

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

What takes the brain so long: Object recognition at the level of minimal images develops for up to seconds of presentation time

Rich empirical evidence has shown that visual object recognition in the brain is fast and effortless, with relevant brain signals reported to start as early as 80 ms. Here we study the time trajectory of the recognition process at the level of minimal recognizable images (termed MIRC). These are images that can be recognized reliably, but in which a minute change of the image (reduction by either size or resolution) has a drastic effect on recognition. Subjects were assigned to one of nine exposure conditions: 200, 500, 1000, 2000 ms with or without masking, as well as unlimited time. The subjects were not limited in time to respond after presentation. The results show that in the masked conditions, recognition rates develop gradually over an extended period, e.g. average of 18% for 200 ms exposure and 45% for 500 ms, increasing significantly with longer exposure even above 2 secs. When presented for unlimited time (until response), MIRC recognition rates were equivalent to the rates of full-object images presented for 50 ms followed by masking. What takes the brain so long to recognize such images? We discuss why processes involving eye-movements, perceptual decision-making and pattern completion are unlikely explanations. Alternatively, we hypothesize that MIRC recognition requires an extended top-down process complementing the feed-forward phase.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Discovering containment: from infants to machines

Current artificial learning systems can recognize thousands of visual categories, or play Go at a champion"s level, but cannot explain infants learning, in particular the ability to learn complex concepts without guidance, in a specific order. A notable example is the category of 'containers' and the notion of containment, one of the earliest spatial relations to be learned, starting already at 2.5 months, and preceding other common relations (e.g., support). Such spontaneous unsupervised learning stands in contrast with current highly successful computational models, which learn in a supervised manner, that is, by using large data sets of labeled examples. How can meaningful concepts be learned without guidance, and what determines the trajectory of infant learning, making some notions appear consistently earlier than others?

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Do You See What I Mean? Visual Resolution of Linguistic Ambiguities

Understanding language goes hand in hand with the ability to integrate complex contextual information obtained via perception. In this work, we present a novel task for grounded language understanding: disambiguating a sentence given a visual scene which depicts one of the possible interpretations of that sentence. To this end, we introduce a new multimodal corpus containing ambiguous sentences, representing a wide range of syntactic, semantic and discourse ambiguities, coupled with videos that visualize the different interpretations for each sentence. We address this task by extending a vision model which determines if a sentence is depicted by a video. We demonstrate how such a model can be adjusted to recognize different interpretations of the same underlying sentence, allowing to disambiguate sentences in a unified fashion across the different ambiguity types.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

Measuring and modeling the perception of natural and unconstrained gaze in humans and machines

Humans are remarkably adept at interpreting the gaze direction of other individuals in their surroundings. This skill is at the core of the ability to engage in joint visual attention, which is essential for establishing social interactions. How accurate are humans in determining the gaze direction of others in lifelike scenes, when they can move their heads and eyes freely, and what are the sources of information for the underlying perceptual processes? These questions pose a challenge from both empirical and computational perspectives, due to the complexity of the visual input in real-life situations. Here we measure empirically human accuracy in perceiving the gaze direction of others in lifelike scenes, and study computationally the sources of information and representations underlying this cognitive capacity. We show that humans perform better in face-to-face conditions compared with recorded conditions, and that this advantage is not due to the availability of input dynamics. We further show that humans are still performing well when only the eyes-region is visible, rather than the whole face. We develop a computational model, which replicates the pattern of human performance, including the finding that the eyes-region contains on its own, the required information for estimating both head orientation and direction of gaze. Consistent with neurophysiological findings on task-specific face regions in the brain, the learned computational representations reproduce perceptual effects such as the Wollaston illusion, when trained to estimate direction of gaze, but not when trained to recognize objects or faces.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2014arXiv

When Computer Vision Gazes at Cognition

Joint attention is a core, early-developing form of social interaction. It is based on our ability to discriminate the third party objects that other people are looking at. While it has been shown that people can accurately determine whether another person is looking directly at them versus away, little is known about human ability to discriminate a third person gaze directed towards objects that are further away, especially in unconstraint cases where the looker can move her head and eyes freely. In this paper we address this question by jointly exploring human psychophysics and a cognitively motivated computer vision model, which can detect the 3D direction of gaze from 2D face images. The synthesis of behavioral study and computer vision yields several interesting discoveries. (1) Human accuracy of discriminating targets 8°-10° of visual angle apart is around 40% in a free looking gaze task; (2) The ability to interpret gaze of different lookers vary dramatically; (3) This variance can be captured by the computational model; (4) Human outperforms the current model significantly. These results collectively show that the acuity of human joint attention is indeed highly impressive, given the computational challenge of the natural looking task. Moreover, the gap between human and model performance, as well as the variability of gaze interpretation across different lookers, require further understanding of the underlying mechanisms utilized by humans for this challenging task.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access