Determining the Scope of English Quantifiers

How can one represent the meaning of English sentences in a formal logical notation such that the translation of English into this logical form is simple and general? This report answers this question for a particular kind of meaning, namely quantifier scope, and for a particular part of the translation, namely the syntactic influence on the translation. Rules are presented which predict, for example, that the sentence: Everyone in this room speaks at least two languages. has the quantifier scope AE in standard predicate calculus, while the sentence: At lease two languages are spoken by everyone in this room. has the quantifier scope EA. Three different logical forms are presented, and their translation rules are examined. One of the logical forms is predicate calculus. The translation rules for it were developed by Robert May (May 19 77). The other two logical forms are Skolem form and a simple computer programming language. The translation rules for these two logical forms are new. All three sets of translation rules are shown to be general, in the sense that the same rules express the constraints that syntax imposes on certain other linguistic phenomena. For example, the rules that constrain the translation into Skolem form are shown to constrain definite np anaphora as well. A large body of carefully collected data is presented, and used to assess the empirical accuracy of each of the theories. None of the three theories is vastly superior to the others. However, the report concludes by suggesting that a combination of the two newer theories would have the greatest generality and the highest empirical accuracy.

A Detailed Look at Scale and Translation Invariance in a Hierarchical Neural Model of Visual Object Recognition

The HMAX model has recently been proposed by Riesenhuber & Poggio as a hierarchical model of position- and size-invariant object recognition in visual cortex. It has also turned out to model successfully a number of other properties of the ventral visual stream (the visual pathway thought to be crucial for object recognition in cortex), and particularly of (view-tuned) neurons in macaque inferotemporal cortex, the brain area at the top of the ventral stream. The original modeling study only used ``paperclip'' stimuli, as in the corresponding physiology experiment, and did not explore systematically how model units' invariance properties depended on model parameters. In this study, we aimed at a deeper understanding of the inner workings of HMAX and its performance for various parameter settings and ``natural'' stimulus classes. We examined HMAX responses for different stimulus sizes and positions systematically and found a dependence of model units' responses on stimulus position for which a quantitative description is offered. Interestingly, we find that scale invariance properties of hierarchical neural models are not independent of stimulus class, as opposed to translation invariance, even though both are affine transformations within the image plane.

Translation Invariance in Object Recognition, and Its Relation to Other Visual Transformations

Human object recognition is generally considered to tolerate changes of the stimulus position in the visual field. A number of recent studies, however, have cast doubt on the completeness of translation invariance. In a new series of experiments we tried to investigate whether positional specificity of short-term memory is a general property of visual perception. We tested same/different discrimination of computer graphics models that were displayed at the same or at different locations of the visual field, and found complete translation invariance, regardless of the similarity of the animals and irrespective of direction and size of the displacement (Exp. 1 and 2). Decisions were strongly biased towards same decisions if stimuli appeared at a constant location, while after translation subjects displayed a tendency towards different decisions. Even if the spatial order of animal limbs was randomized ("scrambled animals"), no deteriorating effect of shifts in the field of view could be detected (Exp. 3). However, if the influence of single features was reduced (Exp. 4 and 5) small but significant effects of translation could be obtained. Under conditions that do not reveal an influence of translation, rotation in depth strongly interferes with recognition (Exp. 6). Changes of stimulus size did not reduce performance (Exp. 7). Tolerance to these object transformations seems to rely on different brain mechanisms, with translation and scale invariance being achieved in principle, while rotation invariance is not.