No abstract

A key insight from 50 years of neurophysiology is that some neurons in cortex respond to information in a highly selective manner. Why is this? We argue that selective representations support the coactivation of multiple "things" (e.g., words, objects, faces) in short-term memory, whereas nonselective codes are often unsuitable for this purpose. That is, the coactivation of nonselective codes often results in a blend pattern that is ambiguous; the so-called superposition catastrophe. We show that a recurrent parallel distributed processing network trained to code for multiple words at the same time over the same set of units learns localist letter and word codes, and the number of localist codes scales with the level of the superposition. Given that many cortical systems are required to coactivate multiple things in short-term memory, we suggest that the superposition constraint plays a role in explaining the existence of selective codes in cortex.

We argue that making accept/reject decisions on scientific hypotheses, including a recent call for changing the canonical alpha level from p = 0.05 to p = 0.005, is deleterious for the finding of new discoveries and the progress of science. Given that blanket and variable alpha levels both are problematic, it is sensible to dispense with significance testing altogether. There are alternatives that address study design and sample size much more directly than significance testing does; but none of the statistical tools should be taken as the new magic method giving clear-cut mechanical answers. Inference should not be based on single studies at all, but on cumulative evidence from multiple independent studies. When evaluating the strength of the evidence, we should consider, for example, auxiliary assumptions, the strength of the experimental design, and implications for applications. To boil all this down to a binary decision based on a p-value threshold of 0.05, 0.01, 0.005, or anything else, is not acceptable.

Visual translation tolerance refers to our capacity to recognize objects over a wide range of different retinal locations. Although translation is perhaps the simplest spatial transform that the visual system needs to cope with, the extent to which the human visual system can identify objects at previously unseen locations is unclear, with some studies reporting near complete invariance over 10 degrees and other reporting zero invariance at 4 degrees of visual angle. Similarly, there is confusion regarding the extent of translation tolerance in computational models of vision, as well as the degree of match between human and model performance. Here, we report a series of eye-tracking studies (total N = 70) demonstrating that novel objects trained at one retinal location can be recognized at high accuracy rates following translations up to 18 degrees. We also show that standard deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs) support our findings when pretrained to classify another set of stimuli across a range of locations, or when a global average pooling (GAP) layer is added to produce larger receptive fields. Our findings provide a strong constraint for theories of human vision and help explain inconsistent findings previously reported with convolutional neural networks (CNNs).

We argue that making accept/reject decisions on scientific hypotheses, including a recent call for changing the canonical alpha level from p= .05 to .005, is deleterious for the finding of new discoveries and the progress of science. Given that blanket and variable alpha levels both are problematic, it is sensible to dispense with significance testing altogether. There are alternatives that address study design and sample size much more directly than significance testing does; but none of the statistical tools should be taken as the new magic method giving clear-cut mechanical answers. Inference should not be based on single studies at all, but on cumulative evidence from multiple independent studies. When evaluating the strength of the evidence, we should consider, for example, auxiliary assumptions, the strength of the experimental design, and implications for applications. To boil all this down to a binary decision based on a p-value threshold of .05, .01, .005, or anything else, is not acceptable.