Bayesian Observer Models in Visual Perception

Sun Qi

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250407

PDF(1973 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2025, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (4) : 836-846. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250407

Computational modeling and artificial intelligence

Bayesian Observer Models in Visual Perception

Sun Qi

Author information +

History +

Abstract

It is widely proposed that the perception of the visual world operates as a form of statistical inference based on uncertain evidence. In this context, researchers have developed various computational models to elucidate the process of inference. This study primarily reviews computational models grounded in the Bayesian inference framework, including:
(1)The Classical Bayesian Observer Model: This model optimally combines prior knowledge of a specific physical feature with its likelihood distribution given a particular value. It effectively accounts for the prior-peak-compression bias (i.e., Bayesian bias).
(2)The Efficient-Coding Constrained Bayesian Observer Model: This model efficiently encodes physical features based on prior information and subsequently decodes these features using Bayes' rule. Notably, it distinguishes between external (physical) noise and internal (sensory) noise that influences stimulus certainty. The results demonstrated that this model adequately explains both Bayesian and anti-Bayesian biases.
(3)The Hierarchical Bayesian Observer Model: This model posits that the sensory system first derives conclusions based on a specific context, which are then used to constrain subsequent Bayesian inference processes, thereby establishing a hierarchical inference framework. Additionally, the context typically generates multiple hypotheses, allowing observers to optimally integrate conclusions from all hypotheses or select the conclusion with the highest probability. The former scenario leads to a full inference hierarchical Bayesian observer model, while the latter results in a conditional inference hierarchical Bayesian observer model. Recent studies have shown that the performance of these two models in explaining behavioral data is influenced by the distance between the feature value and the conditional boundary.
(4)The Holistic Bayesian Observer Model: This model suggests that context and Bayesian inferences occur in parallel, with the sensory system weighting the integration losses from both inferences to perceive the physical feature. Furthermore, this model encompasses the motor system, including motor noise when observers adjust probes to reproduce stimuli.
Upon reviewing these models, the current study found that each exhibits distinct advantages and limitations in elucidating perceptual biases and variance associated with different physical features. In light of these findings, this study developed a comprehensive computational model (illustrated in Figure 2 of the paper) that integrates both bottom-up and top-down perceptual processes, as well as the motor control system including motor noise and the perceptual-response mapping scaling process. This new model effectively balances the strengths and weaknesses of previous Bayesian inference models.
The comprehensive Bayesian observer model proposed in this study is constructed from a theoretical perspective, based on a systematic comparison of the aforementioned Bayesian observer models, and incorporates their respective strengths and weaknesses. However, it still lacks empirical support from behavioral and physiological evidence. Future studies will need to design rigorous behavioral and physiological experiments to provide empirical data that substantiate the validity of the model. In this regard, we propose the following questions that need to be addressed:
(1)What are the computational and physiological mechanisms underlying the integration of long-term and short-term priors?
(2)Does the perception-to-motor mapping process, which is influenced by the response range, interact with the range of the short-term prior? If so, what are the underlying computational and physiological mechanisms?
(3)How do the priors for the integration of long-term and short-term priors interact with context inference?
(4)Is the context inference in hierarchical Bayesian inference also parallel to context inference in feature estimation?
Answering these questions will help validate the new proposed model and enhance researchers’ understanding of perception and decision-making processes. This, in turn, will foster advancements in theory and practical applications across psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and related fields.

Key words

visual perception / bayesian observer model / information theory / hierarchical inference / prior

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Sun Qi. Bayesian Observer Models in Visual Perception[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2025, 48(4): 836-846 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250407

References

[1] Adams W. J., Graf E. W., & Ernst M. O. (2004). Experience can change the 'light-from-above 'prior. Nature Neuroscience, 7(10), 1057-1058.
[2] Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61(3), 183-193.
[3] Barlow H. B.(2012). Possible principles underlying the transformations of sensory messages. In W. Rosenblith (Ed.) Sensory communication (pp. 217-234). MIT Press.
[4] Bays, P. M. (2014). Noise in neural populations accounts for errors in working memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(10), 3632-3645.
[5] Bornstein, M. H., & Korda, N. O. (1984). Discrimination and matching within and between hues measured by reaction times: Some implications for categorical perception and levels of information processing. Psychological Research, 46(3), 207-222.
[6] Burge, J., & Geisler, W. S. (2011). Optimal defocus estimation in individual natural images. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(40), 16849-16854.
[7] Chalk M., Seitz A. R., & Seriès P. (2010). Rapidly learned stimulus expectations alter perception of motion. Journal of Vision, 10(8), 2.
[8] Chen A., Gu Y., Takahashi K., Angelaki D. E., & DeAngelis G. C. (2008). Clustering of self-motion selectivity and visual response properties in macaque area MSTd. Journal of Neurophysiology, 100(5), 2669-2683.
[9] Chen S., Ross B., & Murphy G. (2016). Eyetracking reveals multiple-category use in induction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 1050-1067.
[10] Cheyette, S. J., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2020). A unified account of numerosity perception. Nature human Behaviour, 4(12), 1265-1272.
[11] Crane, B. T. (2012). Direction specific biases in human visual and vestibular heading perception. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e51383.
[12] Cuturi, L. F., & MacNeilage, P. R. (2013). Systematic biases in human heading estimation. PloS ONE, 8(2), e56862.
[13] De Gardelle V., Kouider S., & Sackur J. (2010). An oblique illusion modulated by visibility: Non-monotonic sensory integration in orientation processing. Journal of Vision, 10(10), 1-9.
[14] Ding S., Cueva C. J., Tsodyks M., & Qian N. (2017). Visual perception as retrospective Bayesian decoding from high-to low-level features. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(43), E9115-E9124.
[15] Draper, D. (1995). Assessment and propagation of model uncertainty. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57, 45-97.
[16] Etcoff, N. L., & Magee, J. J. (1992). Categorical perception of facial expressions.Cognition, 44(3), 227-240.
[17] Fritsche, M., & de Lange, F. P. (2019). Reference repulsion is not a perceptual illusion. Cognition, 184, 107-118.
[18] Geisler W. S., Najemnik J., & Ing A. D. (2009). Optimal stimulus encoders for natural tasks. Journal of Vision, 9(13), 17.
[19] Gekas N., Chalk M., Seitz A. R., & Seriès P. (2013). Complexity and specificity of experimentally-induced expectations in motion perception. Journal of Vision, 13(4), 8.
[20] Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Houghton Mifflin.
[21] Girshick A. R., Landy M. S., & Simoncelli E. P. (2011). Cardinal rules: Visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nature Neuroscience, 14(7), 926-932.
[22] Goldstone, R. L., & Hendrickson, A. T. (2010). Categorical perception. Cognitive Science, 1(1), 69-78.
[23] Gu Y., Fetsch C. R., Adeyemo B., DeAngelis G. C., & Angelaki D. E. (2010). Decoding of MSTd population activity accounts for variations in the precision of heading perception. Neuron, 66(4), 596-609.
[24] Hahn, M., & Wei, X. X. (2024). A unifying theory explains seemingly contradictory biases in perceptual estimation. Nature Neuroscience, 27(4), 793-804.
[25] Hoeting J., Madigan D., Raftery A., & Volinsky C. (1999). Bayesian model averaging: A tutorial. Statistical Science, 14(4), 382-417.
[26] Jazayeri, M., & Movshon, J. A. (2007). A new perceptual illusion reveals mechanisms of sensory decoding. Nature, 446(7138), 912-915.
[27] Jazayeri, M., & Shadlen, M. N. (2010). Temporal context calibrates interval timing. Nature Neuroscience, 13(8), 1020-1026.
[28] Knill D. C.,& Richards, W. (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge University Press..
[29] Luu, L., & Stocker, A. A. (2018). Post-decision biases reveal a self-consistency principle in perceptual inference. eLife, 7, e33334.
[30] Luu, L., & Stocker, A. A. (2021). Categorical judgments do not modify sensory representations in working memory. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(6), e1008968.
[31] Mamassian P., Landy M., & Maloney, L. T. (2002). Bayesian modelling of visual perception. In R. P. N. Rao, B. A. Olshausen, & M. S. Lewicki (Eds.), Probabilistic models of the brain: Perception and neural function (pp. 13-36). MIT Press.
[32] Mao, J., & Stocker, A. A. (2024). Sensory perception is a holistic inference process. Psychological Review, 131(4), 858-890.
[33] Newell B., Paton H., Hayes B., & Griffiths O. (2010). Speeded induction under uncertainty: The influence of multiple categories and feature conjunctions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 869-874.
[34] Ni, L., & Stocker, A. A. (2023). Efficient sensory encoding predicts robust averaging. Cognition, 232, 105334.
[35] Noel J. P., Zhang L. Q., Stocker A. A., & Angelaki D. E. (2021). Individuals with autism spectrum disorder have altered visual encoding capacity. PLoS Biology, 19(5), e3001215.
[36] Olkkonen, M., & Allred, S. R. (2014). Short-term memory affects color perception in context. PLoS ONE, 9(1), 1-11.
[37] Qiu C., Luu L., & Stocker A. A. (2020). Benefits of commitment in hierarchical inference. Psychological Review, 127(4), 622-639.
[38] Stocker, A. A., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2006). Noise characteristics and prior expectations in human visual speed perception. Nature Neuroscience, 9(4), 578-585.
[39] Sun, J., & Perona, P. (1998). Where is the sun? Nature Neuroscience, 1(3), 183-184.
[40] Sun Q., Gong X. M., & Sun Q. (2025). Impact of conflicts between long-and short-term priors on the weighted prior integration in visual perception. Cognition, 254, 106006.
[41] Sun Q., Wang J. Y., & Gong X. M. (2024). Conflicts between short-and long-term experiences affect visual perception through modulating sensory or motor response systems: Evidence from Bayesian inference models. Cognition, 246, 105768.
[42] Sun Q., Xu L. H., & Stocker A. A. (2025b). A linear perception-action mapping accounts for response range-dependent biases in heading estimation from optic flow. PLOS Computational Biology, 21(6), e1013147.
[43] Sun Q., Yan R., Wang J., & Li X. (2022). Heading perception from optic flow is affected by heading distribution. i-Perception, 13(6), 20416695221133406.
[44] Sun Q., Zhang H., Alais D., & Li L. (2020). Serial dependence and center bias in heading perception from optic flow. Journal of Vision, 20(10), 1-15.
[45] Tomassini A., Morgan M. J., & Solomon J. A. (2010). Orientation uncertainty reduces perceived obliquity. Vision Research, 50(5), 541-547.
[46] Wei X. X.,& Stocker, A. A. (2012). Efficient coding provides a direct link between prior and likelihood in perceptual Bayesian inference. In F. Pereira, C. J. Burges, L. Bottou & K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems NIPS 25 (pp 1313-1321). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[47] Wei, X. X., & Stocker, A. A. (2015). A Bayesian observer model constrained by efficient coding can explain 'anti-Bayesian' percepts. Nature Neuroscience, 18(10), 1509-1517.
[48] Wei, X. X., & Stocker, A. A. (2017). Lawful relation between perceptual bias and discriminability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(38), 10244-10249.
[49] Xu L. H., Sun Q., Zhang B., & Li X. (2022). Attractive serial dependence in heading perception from optic flow occurs at the perceptual and postperceptual stages. Journal of Vision, 22(12), 1-25.
[50] Zamboni E., Ledgeway T., McGraw P. V., & Schluppeck D. (2016). Do perceptual biases emerge early or late in visual processing? Decision-biases in motion perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 283(1833), 20160263.
[51] Zhang L. Q., Mao J., Aguirre G. K., & Stocker A. A. (2024). The tilt illusion arises from an efficient reallocation of neural coding resources at the contextual boundary. bioRxiv.
[52] Zhang, L. Q., & Stocker, A. A. (2022). Prior expectations in visual speed perception predict encoding characteristics of neurons in area MT. Journal of Neuroscience, 42(14), 2951-2962.