Visual motion processing is essential for humans to perceive and interact with dynamic environments. Despite extensive research in cognitive neuroscience, image-computable models that can extract informative motion flow from natural scenes in a manner consistent with human visual processing have yet to be established. Meanwhile, recent advancements in computer vision (CV), propelled by deep learning, have led to significant progress in optical flow estimation, a task closely related to motion perception. Here we propose an image-computable model of human motion perception by bridging the gap between biological and CV models. Specifically, we introduce a novel two-stages approach that combines trainable motion energy sensing with a recurrent self-attention network for adaptive motion integration and segregation.

Many properties of perceptual decision making are well-modeled by deep neural networks. However, such architectures typically treat decisions as instantaneous readouts, overlooking the temporal dynamics of the decision process. We present an image-computable model of perceptual decision making in which choices and response times arise from efficient sensory encoding and Bayesian decoding of neural spiking activity. We use a Poisson variational autoencoder to learn unsupervised representations of visual stimuli in a population of rate-coded neurons, modeled as independent homogeneous Poisson processes. A task-optimized decoder then continually infers an approximate posterior over actions conditioned on incoming spiking activity. Combining these components with an entropy-based stopping rule yields a principled and image-computable model of perceptual decisions capable of generating trial-by-trial patterns of choices and response times. Applied to MNIST digit classification, the model reproduces key empirical signatures of perceptual decision making, including stochastic variability, right-skewed response time distributions, logarithmic scaling of response times with the number of alternatives (Hick's law), and speed-accuracy trade-offs.

Visual motion processing is essential for humans to perceive and interact with dynamic environments. Despite extensive research in cognitive neuroscience, image-computable models that can extract informative motion flow from natural scenes in a manner consistent with human visual processing have yet to be established. Meanwhile, recent advancements in computer vision (CV), propelled by deep learning, have led to significant progress in optical flow estimation, a task closely related to motion perception. Here we propose an image-computable model of human motion perception by bridging the gap between biological and CV models. Specifically, we introduce a novel two-stages approach that combines trainable motion energy sensing with a recurrent self-attention network for adaptive motion integration and segregation.

Neither the hype exemplified in some exaggerated claims about deep neural networks (DNNs), nor the gloom expressed by Bowers et al. do DNNs as models in vision science justice: DNNs rapidly evolve, and today's limitations are often tomorrow's successes. In addition, providing explanations as well as prediction and image-computability are model desiderata; one should not be favoured at the expense of the other. We agree with Bowers et al. (2022) that some of the quoted statements at the beginning of their target article about DNNs as "best models" are exaggerated--perhaps some of them bordering on scientific hype (Intemann, 2020). However, only the authors of such exaggerated statements are to blame, not DNNs: Instead of blaming DNNs, perhaps Bowers et al. should have engaged in a critical discussion of the increasingly widespread practice of rewarding impact and boldness over carefulness and modesty that allows hyperbole to flourish in science. This is unfortunate as the target article does mention a number of valid issues with DNNs in vision science and raises a number of valid concerns. For example, we fully agree that human vision is much more than recognising photographs of objects in scenes; we also fully agree there are still a number of important behavioural differences between DNNs and humans even in terms of core object recognition (DiCarlo et al., 2012), i.e. even when recognising photographs of objects in scenes, such as DNNs' adversarial susceptibility (section 4.1.1)