Cited by 44Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionAdvanced Neural Network Applications

Predictive coding feedback results in perceived illusory contours in a recurrent neural network

Open access
Pang, Zhaoyang, O’May, Callum Biggs, Choksi, Bhavin, VanRullen, Rufin·2021·Neural Networks

Abstract

Modern feedforward convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can now solve some computer vision tasks at super-human levels. However, these networks only roughly mimic human visual perception. One difference from human vision is that they do not appear to perceive illusory contours (e.g. Kanizsa squares) in the same way humans do. Physiological evidence from visual cortex suggests that the perception of illusory contours could involve feedback connections. Would recurrent feedback neural networks perceive illusory contours like humans? In this work we equip a deep feedforward convolutional network with brain-inspired recurrent dynamics. The network was first pretrained with an unsupervised reconstruction objective on a natural image dataset, to expose it to natural object contour statistics. Then, a classification decision head was added and the model was finetuned on a form discrimination task: squares vs. randomly oriented inducer shapes (no illusory contour). Finally, the model was tested with the unfamiliar "illusory contour" configuration: inducer shapes oriented to form an illusory square. Compared with feedforward baselines, the iterative "predictive coding" feedback resulted in more illusory contours being classified as physical squares. The perception of the illusory contour was measurable in the luminance profile of the image reconstructions produced by the model, demonstrating that the model really "sees" the illusion. Ablation studies revealed that natural image pretra…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neunet.2021.08.024

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pang et al. (2021) found that a predictive coding network, but not the initial feedforward model, was sensitive to the Kanizsa illusion.

    “Pang et al. (2021) used a technique for adding feedback predictive coding connections to a feedforward DCNN and found further evidence that this predictive coding network, but not the initial feedforward model, was sensitive to the Kanizsa illusion.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pang, Z., O’May, C. B., Choksi, B., & VanRullen, R.
Affiliations
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
VanRullen, Rufin
Venue
Neural Networks
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-12
Volume
144
Pages
164-175
ISSN
0893-6080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3162322270
Cited by
44
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 2
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neural Networks (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-18-CE37-0007, ANR-19-P3IA-0004, ANR-19-NEUC-0004, ANR‐19, PI3A-0004, 19-PI3A-0004, ANR18, ANR-19-PI3A-0004)
  • China Scholarship Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
Keywords
illusory contours, predictive coding, recurrent neural networks, feedback connections, Kanizsa square, visual perception, unsupervised pre-training, natural image statistics, form discrimination, brain-inspired models, VGG
MeSH terms
Feedback, Form Perception, Humans, Illusions, Photic Stimulation, Visual Cortex, Neural Networks, Computer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review