The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of convolutional neural networks for visual recognition
Abstract
Convolutional neural networks provide an efficient method to constrain the complexity of feedforward neural networks by weight sharing and restriction to local connections. This network topology has been applied in particular to image classification when sophisticated preprocessing is to be avoided and raw images are to be classified directly. In this paper two variations of convolutional networks--neocognitron and a modification of neocognitron--are compared with classifiers based on fully connected feedforward layers (i.e., multilayer perceptron, nearest neighbor classifier, auto-encoding network) with respect to their visual recognition performance. Beside the original neocognitron a modification of the neocognitron is proposed which combines neurons from perceptron with the localized network structure of neocognitron. Instead of training convolutional networks by time-consuming error backpropagation, in this work a modular procedure is applied whereby layers are trained sequentially from the input to the output layer in order to recognize features of increasing complexity. For a quantitative experimental comparison with standard classifiers two very different recognition tasks have been chosen: handwritten digit recognition and face recognition. In the first example on handwritten digit recognition the generalization of convolutional networks is compared to fully connected networks. In several experiments the influence of variations of position, size, and orientation of digits is determined and the relation between training sample size and validation error is observed. In the second example recognition of human faces is investigated under constrained and variable conditions with respect to face orientation and illumination and the limitations of convolutional networks are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Turk, M., & Pentland, A. (1991) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.1991.3.1.71 · Cited by 13,733
Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1962) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1962.sp006837 · Cited by 13,680
Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition
Bishop, C. M. (1995) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198538493.001.0001 · Cited by 12,287
Backpropagation Applied to Handwritten Zip Code Recognition
LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., Henderson, D., Howard, R. E., Hubbard, W., & Jackel, L. D. (1989) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1989.1.4.541 · Cited by 11,891
Fukushima, K. (1980) · Biological Cybernetics · doi:10.1007/bf00344251 · Cited by 5,759
Cited by
Jing, L., Wang, T., Zhao, M., & Wang, P. (2017) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s17020414 · Cited by 379
Automatic moth detection from trap images for pest management
Ding, W., & Taylor, G. (2016) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2016.02.003 · Cited by 367
Scime, L., & Beuth, J. (2018) · Additive Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.09.034 · Cited by 322
Liang, H., & Li, Q. (2016) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs8020099 · Cited by 238
Radio Galaxy Zoo: compact and extended radio source classification with deep learning
Lukic, V, Brüggen, M., Banfield, J. K., Wong, O. I., Rudnick, L., Norris, R. P., & Simmons, B. (2018) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty163 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Nebauer, C.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 685-696
- ISSN
- 1045-9227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2132241724
- Cited by
- 597
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of convolutional neural networks for visual recognition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/72.701181
- The paper
- Nebauer, C. (1998). Evaluation of convolutional neural networks for visual recognition. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. https://doi.org/10.1109/72.701181
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.