Sign me up for this discussion! Some evidence for the high speed pattern recognition in the brain should be software like spritz[1] which effectively removes the need of secades by placing the recognizable part of a word always at the same spot on the screen and through this it's improving your reading speed.
[1] http://www.spritzinc.com Am 11.03.2014 14:35 schrieb "Eric Collins" <[email protected]>: > I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think that I have read > text as strictly left to right from one letter to the next since I was a > child. My intuition is that we look at the first couple of letters (and > subconsciously take in the length of the word), and then we begin to make > predictions about what the word might be. I've noticed this in my son as > he was learning to read. He would see the first few letters and then try to > guess the rest of the word based on what he thought the first part of the > word sounded like. I had to admonish him several times to read the whole > word and not just guess. But my intuition tells me that it may not be > necessary to read every single letter in a word. > > We are highly efficient pattern recognizers. I think our eyes > instinctively saccad to areas of the pattern that will help us disambiguate > what we are seeing. In the case of reading text, we might see the first > two or three letters and begin making predictions based on them (and > probably the approximate length of the word as roughly judged by our > periphery vision). Our eyes then saccad to the location in the text that > is (statistically speaking) the most likely to reduce the number of > potential patterns that have letters at the locations we have already > scanned with our fovea. (I think something similar to this allows us to > achieve some degree of spatial invariance when reading at an angle or > upside down.) We do this until we have a high enough confidence in our > prediction to move on. (I'm sure context is also used in this process as > well.) > > In the past, I have been trying to think about this problem in terms of > Bayesian analysis, but more recently, my thoughts have been shifting more > towards the CLA/HTM and sensor-motor integration. I think there is a > tremendous amount of potential to perform pattern recognition utilizing > both the spatial and temporal poolers through the use of saccads. But, I > will save that discussion for the nupic-theory list if anyone is interested. > > Eric M. Collins > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Aseem Hegshetye > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Matt: that was a great question, because the whole debate depends on >> understanding the input. >> >> suppose letters are input to the system. Every letter has a predefined >> representation. >> C=[1100000] >> O=[1010000] >> W=[1001000] >> H=[1000100] >> Since all four letters have 1st bit overlapping, their SRD's are going to >> have overlapping bits. >> suppose their SDR's are: >> C=[00010000010000100010000000000100001] >> O=[01000000010000100010000000000100100] >> W=[00010000010000100010000001000000100] >> H=[00010010000000100010000000000100001] >> >> I am trying to build a heirarchy. So from temporal pooler i am planning >> on building higher level SDR. So a word 'COW' will have a SDR and 'HOW' >> will have a SDR. >> now a very simple question: >> Would COW and HOW have overlapping bits? Cant say they will be >> semantically similar coz both mean different. But actual semantics is too >> high level. like in subutai's exp. fox had a representation which was >> semantically similar to something that ate rodent, Do you think these two >> words COW and HOW should have some representational similarities. >> >> I discussed this problem with my roomate, who knows nothing about AI or >> brain or programming. He said both words sound same mostly. If there was >> some noise in the surrounding when i heard these words,my prediction could >> have predicted either of them with equal probability. two words that sound >> similar, means our cochlea generates significantly similar signals for >> both, have similar representation in our low level brain, they need not >> have similar meaning. >> >> Both words are distinct[HOW] [COW}, but since last two letters are same, >> they sound a bit similar, so should they have little semantic similarity? >> >> thanks >> >> _______________________________________________ >> nupic mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org >> > > > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org > >
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
