Ah, you were faster. I;ve posted to nupic-theory only, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it... Cheers,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Sebastian Hänisch <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > -- Marek Otahal :o)
_______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
