Multiple models of vision propose that perception involves a process of prediction and verification. Here we argue that real-world statistical regularities—representations that, on average, more quickly make contact with meaning—serve as the basis of these predictions. We show that statistically regular images—those, we argue, that more closely match perceptual predictions—are more readily perceived and more efficiently processed than statistically irregular images.
BarM. (2003). A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(4), 600–609. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321662976
2.
BarlowH. B. (1961). Possible principles underlying the transformations of sensory messages. In RosenblithW. A. (Ed.), Sensory communication (pp. 217–234). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262518420.003.0013
3.
BiedermanI.MezzanotteR. J.RabinowitzJ. C. (1982). Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 143–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90007-X
CaddiganE.ChooH.Fei-FeiL.BeckD. M. (2017). Categorization influences detection: A perceptual advantage for representative exemplars of natural scene categories. Journal of Vision, 17(1), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.1.21
6.
CenterE. G.FedermeierK. D.BeckD. M. (2024). The brain’s sensitivity to real-world statistical regularity does not require full attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 36, 1715–1740. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_02181
7.
CenterE. G.GephartA. M.YangP.-L.BeckD. M. (2022). Typical viewpoints of objects are better detected than atypical ones. Journal of Vision, 22(12), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.12.1
8.
FeldmanH.FristonK. J. (2010). Attention, uncertainty, and free-energy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, Article 215. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00215
9.
FrostR.ArmstrongB. C.ChristiansenM. H. (2019). Statistical learning research: A critical review and possible new directions. Psychological Bulletin, 145(12), 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000210
10.
GreeneM. R.BotrosA. P.BeckD. M.Fei-FeiL. (2015). What you see is what you expect: Rapid scene understanding benefits from prior experience. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(4), 1239–1251. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0859-8
11.
HeilbronM.Van HarenJ.HagoortP.De LangeF. P. (2023). Lexical processing strongly affects reading times but not skipping during natural reading. Open Mind, 7, 757–783. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00099
12.
JiangJ.SummerfieldC.EgnerT. (2013). Attention sharpens the distinction between expected and unexpected percepts in the visual brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(47), 18438–18447. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3308-13.2013
KokP.JeheeJ. F. M.de LangeF. P. (2012). Less is more: Expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex. Neuron, 75(2), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034
15.
KumarM.FedermeierK. D.BeckD. M. (2021). The N300: An index for predictive coding of complex visual objects and scenes. Cerebral Cortex Communications, 2(2), tgab030. https://doi.org/10.1093/texcom/tgab030
16.
LupyanG.Abdel RahmanR.BoroditskyL.ClarkA. (2020). Effects of language on visual perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(11), 930–944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.08.005
17.
PalmerS. E.RoschE.ChaseP. (1981). Canonical perspective and the perception of objects. In LongJ.BaddeleyA. (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 135–151). Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
PeelenM. V.BerlotE.De LangeF. P. (2023). Predictive processing of scenes and objects. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00254-0
19.
PetersonM. A. (2019). Past experience and meaning affect object detection: A hierarchical Bayesian approach. In FedermeierK. D.BeckD. M. (Eds.), Knowledge and vision (pp. 223–257). Academic Press.
20.
PrinzmetalW.LyonC. E. (1996). The word-detection effect: Sophisticated guessing or perceptual enhancement?Memory & Cognition, 24(3), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213297
21.
PylyshynZ. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 341–365. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002022
22.
RaoR. P. N.BallardD. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/4580
23.
RockI. (1996). Indirect perception. MIT Press.
24.
RoschE. (1978). Principles of categorization. In RoschE.BloomB. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Routledge.
SchendanH. E.KutasM. (2003). Time course of processes and representations supporting visual object identification and memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892903321107864
28.
ShaoZ.BeckD. M. (2024). Is attention necessary for the representational advantage of good exemplars over bad exemplars?European Journal of Neuroscience, 59(9), 2353–2372. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16291
29.
SmithM. E.LoschkyL. C. (2019). The influence of sequential predictions on scene-gist recognition. Journal of Vision, 19(12), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1167/19.12.14
30.
SummerfieldC.de LangeF. P. (2014). Expectation in perceptual decision making: Neural and computational mechanisms. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(11), 745–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3838
31.
TorralboA.WaltherD. B.ChaiB.CaddiganE.Fei-FeiL.BeckD. M. (2013). Good exemplars of natural scene categories elicit clearer patterns than bad exemplars but not greater BOLD activity. PLOS ONE, 8(3), Article e58594. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058594
32.
VõM. L.-H.WolfeJ. M. (2013). Differential electrophysiological signatures of semantic and syntactic scene processing. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1816–1823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613476955
33.
von HelmholtzH. (1925). Helmholtz’s treatise on physiological optics. Optical Society of America.
34.
YangP.-L.BeckD. M. (2023). Familiarity influences visual detection in a task that does not require explicit recognition. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics,85(4), 1127–1149. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02703-7
