1 Introduction
The classic motion energy model turns the frames of a video into a representation of motion by summing over squares of Gabor filter responses (Adelson & Bergen, 1985; Watson & Albert J. Ahumada, 1985). One of the motivations for this computation is the fact that sums over squared filter responses allow us to detect “oriented” energies in spatiotemporal frequency bands. This, in turn, makes it possible to encode motion independently of phase information, and thus to represent motion to some degree independent of what is moving. Related models have been proposed for binocular disparity estimation (e.g. Fleet et al., 1996), which also involves the estimation of the displacement of local features across multiple views.
For many years, handcrafted, Gaborlike filters have been used (see, e.g., Derpanis, 2012)
, but in recent years, unsupervised deep learning techniques have become popular which learn the features from videos
(e.g. Taylor et al., 2010; Le et al., 2011; Ji et al., 2013; Memisevic & Hinton, 2007), The interest in learningbased models of motion is fueled in part by the observation that for activity recognition, handcrafted features tend to not perform uniformly well across tasks (Wang et al., 2009), which suggests learning the features instead of designing them by hand.Unlike images, videos have been somewhat resistant to feature learning, in that many standard models do not work well. On images, for example, models like the autoencoder or even Kmeans clustering, are known to yield highly structured, Gaborlike, filters, which perform well in recognition tasks
(Coates et al., 2011). The same does not seem to be true for videos, where neither autoencoders nor Kmeans were shown to work well (see, for example, Section 4). There are two notable exceptions: Feature learning models like ICA, where inference involves a search over filters that are sparse and at the same time minimize squared reconstruction error, were shown to learn at least visually good filters (see, for example, (Olshausen, 2003) and references in (Hyvarinen et al., 2009), Chapter 16). The other exception are energy models, which compute sums over squared filter responses for inference, and which were shown to work well in activity recognition tasks (e.g. Le et al., 2011).In this work, we propose a possible explanation for why some models work well on videos, and other models do not. We show that a linear encoding permits the detection of transformations across time, because it supports the detection of temporal “synchrony” between video and features. This makes it possible to interpret motion energy models as a way to combine two independent contributions to motion encoding, namely the detection of synchrony, and the encoding of invariance. We show how disentangling these two contributions provides a different perspective onto the energy model and suggests new approaches to learning. In particular, we show that learning a linear encoding can be viewed as learning in the presence of multiplicative “gating” interactions (e.g. Mel, 1994). This allows us to learn competitive motion features on conventional CPUbased hardware and in a small fraction of the time required by previous methods.
2 Motion from spatiotemporal synchrony
Consider the task of computing a representation of motion, given two frames and of a video. The classic energy model (Adelson & Bergen, 1985) solves this task by detecting subspace energy. This amounts to computing the sum of squared quadrature Fourier or Gabor coefficients across multiple frequencies and orientations (e.g. Hyvarinen et al., 2009). The motivation behind the energy model is that Fourier amplitudes are independent of stimulus phase, so they yield a representation of motion that is to some degree independent of image content. As we shall show below, this view confounds two independent contributions of the energy model, which may be disentangled in practice.
An alternative to computing the sum over squares, which has originally been proposed for stereopsis, is the crosscorrelation model (Arndt et al., 1995; Fleet et al., 1996), which computes the sum over products of filterresponses across the two frames. It can be shown that the sum over products of filter responses in quadrature encodes angles in the invariant subspaces associated with the transformation. The representation of angles thereby also yields a phaseinvariant representation of motion (e.g. Fleet et al., 1996; Cadieu & Olshausen, 2011; Memisevic, 2012). Like the energy model, it also confounds invariance and representing transformations as we shall show.
It can be shown that crosscorrelation models and energy models are closely related, and that there is a canonical operation that turns one into the other (e.g. Fleet et al., 1996; Memisevic, 2012). We shall revisit the close relationship between these models in Section 3.2.
2.1 Motion estimation by synchrony detection
We shall now discuss how synchrony detection allows us to compute motion, and how contentinvariance can be achieved by pooling afterwards, if desired. To this end, consider two filters and which shall encode the transformation between two images and . We restrict our attention to transformations that can be represented as an orthogonal transformation in “pixel space”, in other words, as an orthogonal image warp. As these include all permutations, they include, in particular, most common spatial transformations such as local translations and their combinations (see, e.g. Memisevic, 2012, for a recent discussion). The assumption of orthogonality of transformations is made implicitly also by the motion energy model.
To detect an orthogonal transformation, , between the two images, we propose to use filters for which
(1) 
holds, and then to check whether the condition
(2) 
is true. We shall call this the ”synchrony condition”. It amounts to choosing a filter pair, such that it is an example of the transformation we want to detect (Eq. 1), and to determine whether the two filters yield equal responses when applied in sequence to the two frames (Eq. 2). We shall later relax the exact equality to an approximate equality.
To see why the synchrony condition counts as evidence for the presence of the transformation, note first that implies .
From this, we get:
(3) 
The last equation follows from (orthogonality of ). This shows that the presence of the transformation implies synchrony (Eq.2) for any two filters which themselves are related through , that is . In order to detect the presence of , we may thus look for the synchrony condition, using a set of filters transformed through . This is an inductive (statistical) reasoning step, in that we can accumulate evidence for a transformation by looking for synchrony across multiple filters. The absence of the transformation implies that all filter pairs violate the synchrony condition.
It is interesting to note that for Gabor filters, phase shifts and position shifts are locally the same (e.g. Fleet et al., 1996). For global Fourier features, phase shifts and position shifts are exactly identical. Thus, synchrony (Eq. 1) between the inputs and a sequence of phaseshifted Fourier (or Gabor) features, for example, allows us to detect transformations which are local translations. We shall discuss learning of filters from video data in Section 3.
The synchrony condition can be extended to a sequence of more than two frames as follows: Let denote the input frames and corresponding filters. To detect a set of transformations , each of which relates two adjacent frames , set for all . The condition for the presence of the sequence of transformations now turns into
(4) 
2.2 The insufficiency of weighted summation
To check for the synchrony condition in practice, it is necessary to detect the equality of transformed filter responses across time (Eq. 2). Most current deep learning models are based on layers of weighted summation followed by a nonlinearity. The detection of synchrony, unfortunately, cannot be performed in a layer of weighted summation plus nonlinearity as we shall discuss now.
The fact that the sum of filter responses,
, will attain its maximum for inputs that both match their filters seems to suggest that thresholding it would allow us to detect synchrony. This is not the case, however, because thresholding works well only for inputs which are very similar to the feature vectors themselves: Most inputs, in practice, will be normalized superpositions of
multiple feature vectors. Thus, to detect synchrony with a thresholded sum, we would need to use a threshold small enough to represent features, , , that explain only a fraction of the variability in . If we assume, for example, that the two features , account forof the variance in the inputs (an overly optimistic assumption), then we would have to reduce the threshold to be one half of the maximum attainable response to be able to detect synchrony. However, at this level, there is no way to distinguish between two stimuli which do satisfy the synchrony condition (
the motion in question is present), and two stimuli where one image is a perfect match to its filter and the other has zero overlap with its filter (the motion in question is not present). The situation can only become worse for feature vectors that account for less than of the variability.2.3 Synchrony detection using multiplicative interactions
If one is willing to abandon weighted sums as the only allowable type of module for constructing deep networks, then a simple way to detect synchrony is by allowing for multiplicative (“gating”) interactions between filter responses: The product
(5) 
will be large only if and both take on large (or both very negative) values. Any sufficiently small response of either or will shut off the response of , regardless of the filter response on the other image. That way, even a low threshold on will not sacrifice our ability to differentiate between the presence of some feature in one of the images vs. the partial presence of the transformed feature in both of the images (synchrony).
2.4 A locally learned gating module
It is important to note that multiplicative interactions will allow us to check for the synchrony condition using entirely local operations: Figure 1
illustrates how we may define a “neuron” that can detect synchrony by allowing for gating interactions within its “dendritic tree”. A model consisting of multiple of these synchrony detector units will be a singlelayer model, as there is no crosstalk required between the units. As we shall show, this fact allows us to use very fast local update rules for learning synchrony from data.
This is in stark contrast to the learning of energy models and bilinear models (e.g. Grimes & Rao, 2005; Hyvärinen & Hoyer, 2000; Memisevic & Hinton, 2007; Bethge et al., 2007; Taylor et al., 2010), which rely on nonlocal computations, such as backprop, for learning (see also, Section 2.5). Although multiplicative interactions have been a common ingredient in most of these models their motivation has been that they allow for the computation of subspace energies or subspace angles rather than synchrony (eg. Memisevic, 2012).
The usefulness of intradendritic gating has been discussed at lengths in the neuroscience literature, for example, in the work by Mel and colleagues (e.g. Archie & Mel, 2000; Mel, 1994). But besides multilayer bilinear models discussed above, it has not received much attention in machine learning. Dendritic gating is reminiscent also of “PiSigma” neurons (Shin & Ghosh, 1991), which have been applied to some supervised prediction tasks in the past.
2.5 Pooling and energy models
Figure 2 shows an illustration of a product response using a 1D example. The figure shows how the product of transformed filters and inputs yields a large response whenever (i) the input is wellrepresented by the filter and (ii) the input evolves over time in a similar way as the filter (second column in the figure). The figure also illustrates how failing to satisfy either (i) or (ii) will yield a small product response (two rightmost columns). The need to satisfy condition (i) makes the product response dependent on the input. This dependency can be alleviated by pooling over multiple products, involving multiple different filters, such that the toplevel pooling unit fires, if any subset of the synchrony detectors fires. The classic energy model, for example, pools over filter pairs in quadrature to eliminate the dependence on phase (Adelson & Bergen, 1985; Fleet et al., 1996). In practice, however, it is not just phase but also frequency, position and orientation (or entirely different properties for nonFourier features), which will determine whether an image is aligned with a filter or not. We investigate pooling with a separately trained pooling layer in Section 3.
case1  case2  case3  
3 Learning synchrony from data
We now discuss how to learn filters which allow us to detect the synchrony condition. There are in principle many ways to achieve this in practice, and we introduce a temporal variant of the Kmeans algorithm to learn synchrony. In Appendix A
we present another model based on the contractive autoencoder
(Rifai et al., 2011), which we call synchrony autoencoder (SAE).In the following, we let denote images, and we let denote matrices whose rows contain feature vectors, which we will denote by .
3.1 Synchrony Kmeans
Online Kmeans clustering has recently been shown to yield efficient, and highly competitive image features for objective recognition (Coates et al., 2011).
We first note that, given a set of cluster centers , performing online gradientdescent on the standard (not synchrony) Kmeans clustering objective is equivalent to updating the cluster centers using the local competitive learning rule (Rumelhart & Zipser, 1986)
(6) 
where is a stepsize and is the “winnertakesall” assignment
(7) 
When clustercenters (“features”) are contrastnormalized, the assignment function is equivalent to
(8) 
With the online Kmeans rule in mind, we now define a synchrony Kmeans (SKmeans) model as follows. We define the synchrony condition by first introducing multiplicative interactions in the assignment function:
(9) 
Note that computing the multiplication is equivalent to replacing the Kmeans winnertakesall units by gating units (cf., Figure 1). This allows us to redefine the Kmeans objective function to be the reconstruction error between one input and the assigned prototype vector, which is gated (multiplied elementwise) with the projection of the other input:
(10) 
The gradient of the reconstruction error is
(11) 
This allows us to define the synchrony Kmeans learning rule:
(12) 
Similar to the onlinekmeans rule (Rumelhart & Zipser, 1986), we obtain a Hebbian term , and an “active forgetting” term which enforces competition among the hiddens. The Hebbian term, in contrast to standard Kmeans, is “gated”, in that it involves both the “presynaptic” input , and the projected presynaptic input coming from the other input. Similarly the update rule for is given by
(13) 
3.2 Synchrony detection using evensymmetric nonlinearities
As defined in Section 2.1, denote the input frames and corresponding filters. An evensymmetric nonlinearity with global minimum at zero, such as the square function, applied to , will be a detector of the synchrony condition, too. The reason is the binomial identity, which states that the square of the sum of terms contains the pairwise products between all individual terms plus the squares of the individual terms. The latter do not change the preferred stimulus of the unit (Fleet et al., 1996; Memisevic, 2012). The value of is high only when the individual terms are equal to each other and of high value, i.e, which is the synchrony condition in case of sequences (Equation 4). Squaring nonlinearities applied to the sum of phaseshifted Gabor filter responses have been the cornerstone of the energy model (Adelson & Bergen, 1985; Watson & Albert J. Ahumada, 1985; Hyvarinen et al., 2009).
Evensymmetric nonlinearities implicitly compute pairwise products and they may be implemented using multiplicative interactions, too: Consider the unit in Figure 1, using “tied” inputs , and assume that they contain a video sequence rather than a single image. If we also use tied weights , then the output, , of this unit will be equal to the square of . In practice, the model can learn to tie weights, if required.
To enable the model from Section 3.1 to encode motion across multiple frames, we may thus proceed as follows: Let be the concatenation of frames , and let denote the matrix containing the feature vectors stacked rowwise. Each feature is composed of frame features where each spans one frame from the input video.
The SKmeans can be adapted to sequences by replacing frames with a sequence and tying the weights to . The update rule for the SKmeans model now becomes
(14) 
where the assignment function is
(15) 
Note that computing the square of above also accounts for synchrony as explained earlier.
For inference in case of the SKmeans model, we use a sigmoid activation function on the squared features in our experiments instead of winnertakesall (cf., Eq.
15). As in the case of object classification (Coates et al., 2011), relaxing the harsh sparsity induced by Kmeans tends to yield codes better suited for recognition tasks.Example filters learned with the contractive SAE on sequences are shown in Figure 3. In the first row of the figure, columns to show filters learned on synthetic movies generated by translating image patches from the natural image dataset in (Martin et al., 2001). Columns to of the second row show filters learned on blocks sampled from videos of a broadcast TV database in (Hateren & Schaaf, 1998). We obtained similar filters using the SKmeans model.
3.3 Learning a separate pooling layer
To study the dependencies of features, we performed Kmeans clustering, using centroids, on the hiddens extracted from the training sequences. Column 5 of Figure 3 shows, for the most active clusters across the training data, the six features which contribute the most to each of the cluster centers. It shows that the “pooling units” (cluster centers) group together features with similar orientation and position, and with arbitrary frequency and phase. This is to be expected, as translation in any direction will affect all frequencies and phase angles, and only “nearby” orientations and positions. Note in particular, that pooling across phase angles alone, as done by the classic energy model, would not be sufficient, and it is, in fact, not the solution found by pooling.
4 Application to activity recognition
Activity recognition is a common task for evaluating models of motion understanding. To allow for a fair comparison, we use the same pipeline as described in (Le et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2009), using the features learned by our models. We train our models on pcawhitened input patches of size . The number of training samples is . The number of product units are fixed at . For inference sub blocks of the same size as the patch size are cropped from “super blocks” of size (Le et al., 2011)
. The sub blocks are cropped with a stride of
on each axis giving sub blocks per super block. The feature responses of sub blocks are concatenated and dimensionally reduced using PCA to form the local feature. Using a separate layer of Kmeans, a vocabulary of spatiotemporal words is learned with samples for training. In all our experiments the super blocks are cropped densely from the video with a overlap. Finally, a kernel SVM on the histogram of spatiotemporal words is used for classification.4.1 Datasets
We evaluated our models on several popular activity recognition benchmark datasets:
KTH (Schuldt et al., 2004): Six actions performed by subjects. Samples divided into train and test data according to the authors original split. The multiclass SVM is directly used for classification.
UCF sports(Rodriguez et al., 2008): Ten action classes. The total number of videos in the dataset is 150. To increase the data we add horizontally flipped version of each video to the dataset. Like in (Rodriguez et al., 2008) we train a multiclass SVM for classification, and we use leaveoneout for evaluation. That is, each original video is tested with all other videos as training set except the flipped version of the one being tested and itself.
Hollywood2 (Marszałek et al., 2009): Twelve activity classes. It consists of 884 test samples and 823 train samples with some of the video samples belonging to multiple classes. Hence, a binary SVM is used to compute the average precision (AP) of each class and the mean AP over all classes is reported (Marszałek et al., 2009).
YUPENN dynamic scenes (Derpanis, 2012): Fourteen scene categories with 30 videos for each category. We only use the grayscale version of the videos in our experiments. Leaveoneout crossvalidation is used for performance evaluation (Derpanis, 2012).
Algorithm  Performance(%) 

SAE  93.5 
SKmeans  93.6 
GRBM(Taylor et al., 2010)  90.0 
ISA model(Le et al., 2011)  93.9 
Algorithm  Performance(%) 

SAE  86.0 
SKmeans  84.7 
ISA model(Le et al., 2011)  86.5 
Algorithm  Performance(%) 

SAE  51.8 
SKmeans  50.5 
GRBM(Taylor et al., 2010)  46.6 
ISA model(Le et al., 2011)  53.3 
covAE (Memisevic, 2011)  43.3 
Algorithm  Performance(%) 

SAE (kNN)  80.7 
SAE (svm)  96.0 
SKmeans (svm)  95.2 
SOE (Derpanis, 2012)  79.0 
4.2 Results
The results are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. They show that the SAE and SKmeans are competitive with the stateoftheart, although learning is simpler than for most existing methods. To evaluate the importance of elementwise products of hidden units, we also evaluated Kmeans as well as a standard autoencoder with contraction as regularization on the Hollywood2 dataset. The models achieved an average precision of and respectively, which is much lower than the performance from SAE and SKmeans. We also tested the covariance autoencoder (Memisevic, 2011), which learns an additional mapping layer that pools over squared simple cell responses. Table 3 shows that the performance of this model is also considerably lower than our singlelayer models, showing that learning the pooling layer along with features did not help.
4.3 Unsupervised learning and dataset bias
To show that our models learn features that can generalize across datasets (“selftaught learning” (Le et al., 2011)
), we trained SAE on random samples from one of the datasets and used it for feature extraction to report performance on the others. The performances using the same metrics as before are shown in table
5. It can be seen that the performance gets reduced by only a fairly small fraction as compared to training on samples from the respective dataset. Only in the case where training on the KTH dataset, performance on Hollywood2 is considerably lower. This is probably due to the less diverse activities in KTH as compared to those in Hollywood2.
Dataset  KTH  UCF  Hollywood2 

KTH  93.5  85.3  44.7 
UCF  92.9  86.0  48.9 
Hollywood2  92.7  85.3  51.8 
4.4 Computational efficiency
Training times for learning the motion features are shown in Table 6
. They show that SKmeans (trained on CPU) is orders of magnitude faster than all other models. For the GPU implementations, we used the theano library
(Bergstra et al., 2010). We also calculated inference times using a similar metric as (Le et al., 2011) and computed the time required to extract descriptors for 30 videos from the Hollywood2 dataset with resolution pixels (with “sigmoidofsquare” hiddens they are identical for SKmeans or SAE). Average inference times (in seconds/frame) were on CPU and on GPU, making the models feasible in practical, and possibly realtime, applications. All experiments were performed on a system with a GHz CPU, GB RAM and a GTX 680 GPU.5 Conclusions
Our work shows that learning about motion from videos can be simplified and significantly sped up by disentangling learning about the spatiotemporal evolution of the signal from learning about invariances in the inputs. This allows us to achieve competitive performance in activity recognition tasks at a fraction of the computational cost for learning motion features required by existing methods, such as the motion energy model (Le et al., 2011). We also showed how learning about motion is possible using entirely local learning rules.
Computing products by using “dendritic gating” within individual, but competing, units may be viewed as an efficient compromise between bilinear models, that are expensive because they encode interactions between all pairs of pixels (Grimes & Rao, 2005; Memisevic & Hinton, 2007; Olshausen et al., 2007), and “factored” models (e.g. Cadieu & Olshausen, 2011; Taylor et al., 2010; Memisevic, 2012), which are multilayer models that rely on more complicated training schemes such as backprop and which do not work as well for recognition.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in project 01GQ0841 (BFNT Frankfurt), by an NSERC Discovery grant and by a Google faculty research award.
Appendix A Synchrony autoencoder
Here we present an additional approach to encoding motion across two frames, based on the contractive autoencoder (Rifai et al., 2011). Like the synchrony Kmeans algorithm, it can be extended to sequences with more than two frames, using an analogous construction (cf., Section 3.2). Given two images, we first compute the linear filter responses and . Given the derivations in Section 2, an encoding of the motion, , inherent in the image sequence may then be defined as
(16) 
where is elementwise multiplication and
is the sigmoid nonlinearity
. This definition makes sense only, if features vectors are related by the transformation we wish to detect. We shall now discuss how we can define a reconstruction criterion that enforces this criterion.The standard way to train an autoencoder on images is to add a decoder and to minimize reconstruction error. In our case, because of the presence of multiplicative interactions in the encoder, the encoding loses information about the sign of the input. However, note that we may interpret the multiplicative interactions as gating as discussed in the previous section. This suggests defining the reconstruction error on one input, given the other. In the decoder we thus perform an elementwise multiplication of the hiddens and factors of one of the input to reconstruct the other. One may also view this as reintroducing the sign information at reconstruction time. Assuming an autoencoder with tied weights, the reconstructed inputs can then be defined as
(17)  
(18) 
We define the reconstruction error as the average squared difference between the two inputs and their respective reconstructions:
(19) 
Learning amounts to minimizing the reconstruction error wrt. the filters and . In contrast to bilinear models, which may be trained using similar criteria (e.g. Memisevic, 2011; Taylor et al., 2010), the representation of motion in Eq. 16 will be dependent on the image content, such as Fourier phase for translational motion. But this dependence can be removed using a separately trained pooling layer as we shall show. The absence of pooling during feature learning allows for much more efficient learning as we show in Section 4. Note that, in practice, one may add bias terms to the definition of hiddens and reconstructions.
a.1 Contractive regularization
It is wellknown that regularization is important to extract useful features and to learn sparse representations. Here, we use contraction as regularization (Rifai et al., 2011). This amounts to adding the Frobenius norm of the Jacobian of the extracted features, i.e., the sum of squares of all partial derivatives of with respect to
(20) 
which for the sigmoidofsquare nonlinearity becomes
(21)  
For training, we add the regularization term to the reconstruction cost, using a hyperparameter
. Contractive regularization is not possible in (multilayer) bilinear models, due to the computational complexity of computing the contraction gradient for multiple layers (e.g. Memisevic, 2011). Being a single layer model, the synchrony autoencoder (SAE) makes the application of contractive regularization feasible. The contraction parameter are set by crossvalidation.The SAE can be adapted to sequences by replacing frames with a sequence and tying the weights to . The representation of motion from Equation 16 can now be redefined as,
(22) 
Note that computing the square of above also accounts for synchrony as explained earlier. The reconstruction error and regularization term for this model can be derived by just replacing appropriate terms in Equations 19 and 21, respectively.
References
 Adelson & Bergen (1985) Adelson, Edward H. and Bergen, James R. Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. J. OPT. SOC. AM. A, 2(2):284–299, 1985.
 Archie & Mel (2000) Archie, Kevin A. and Mel, Bartlett W. A model for intradendritic computation of binocular disparity. Nature Neuroscience, 3(1):54–63, January 2000.
 Arndt et al. (1995) Arndt, P.A., Mallot, H.A., and Bülthoff, H.H. Human stereovision without localized image features. Biological cybernetics, 72(4):279–293, 1995.
 Bergstra et al. (2010) Bergstra, James, Breuleux, Olivier, Bastien, Frédéric, Lamblin, Pascal, Pascanu, Razvan, Desjardins, Guillaume, Turian, Joseph, WardeFarley, David, and Bengio, Yoshua. Theano: a CPU and GPU math expression compiler. In SciPy, 2010.
 Bethge et al. (2007) Bethge, M, Gerwinn, S, and Macke, JH. Unsupervised learning of a steerable basis for invariant image representations. In Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XII. SPIE, 2007.
 Cadieu & Olshausen (2011) Cadieu, Charles F. and Olshausen, Bruno A. Learning IntermediateLevel Representations of Form and Motion from Natural Movies. Neural Computation, 24(4):827–866, December 2011.
 Coates et al. (2011) Coates, Adam, Lee, Honglak, and Ng, A. Y. An analysis of singlelayer networks in unsupervised feature learning. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2011.

Derpanis (2012)
Derpanis, Konstantinos G.
Dynamic scene understanding: The role of orientation features in space and time in scene classification.
In CVPR, 2012.  Fleet et al. (1996) Fleet, D., Wagner, H., and Heeger, D. Neural encoding of binocular disparity: Energy models, position shifts and phase shifts. Vision Research, 36(12):1839–1857, June 1996.
 Grimes & Rao (2005) Grimes, David and Rao, Rajesh. Bilinear sparse coding for invariant vision. Neural Computation, 17(1):47–73, 2005.
 Hateren & Schaaf (1998) Hateren, J. H. van and Schaaf, A. van der. Independent component filters of natural images compared with simple cells in primary visual cortex. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 265(1394):359–366, Mar 1998.
 Hyvärinen & Hoyer (2000) Hyvärinen, Aapo and Hoyer, Patrik. Emergence of phase and shiftinvariant features by decomposition of natural images into independent feature subspaces. Neural Comput., 12:1705–1720, July 2000.

Hyvarinen et al. (2009)
Hyvarinen, Aapo, Hurri, Jarmo, and Hoyer, Patrick O.
Natural Image Statistics: A Probabilistic Approach to Early Computational Vision
. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2009. 
Ji et al. (2013)
Ji, Shuiwang, Xu, Wei, Yang, Ming, and Yu, Kai.
3D convolutional neural networks for human action recognition.
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 35(1):221–231, 2013.  Le et al. (2011) Le, Q.V., Zou, W.Y., Yeung, S.Y., and Ng, A.Y. Learning hierarchical invariant spatiotemporal features for action recognition with independent subspace analysis. In CVPR, 2011.

Marszałek et al. (2009)
Marszałek, Marcin, Laptev, Ivan, and Schmid, Cordelia.
Actions in context.
In
IEEE Conference on Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition
, 2009.  Martin et al. (2001) Martin, D., Fowlkes, C., Tal, D., and Malik, J. A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In ICCV, 2001.
 Mel (1994) Mel, Bartlett W. Information processing in dendritic trees. Neural Computation, 6(6):1031–1085, 1994.
 Memisevic (2011) Memisevic, Roland. Gradientbased learning of higherorder image features. In ICCV, 2011.
 Memisevic (2012) Memisevic, Roland. On multiview feature learning. In ICML, 2012.
 Memisevic & Hinton (2007) Memisevic, Roland and Hinton, Geoffrey. Unsupervised learning of image transformations. In CVPR, 2007.
 Olshausen (2003) Olshausen, B.A. Learning sparse, overcomplete representations of timevarying natural images. In Image Processing, 2003. ICIP 2003. Proceedings. 2003 International Conference on, volume 1, pp. I–41–4 vol.1, Sept 2003.
 Olshausen et al. (2007) Olshausen, Bruno, Cadieu, Charles, Culpepper, Jack, and Warland, David. Bilinear models of natural images. In SPIE Proceedings: Human Vision Electronic Imaging XII, San Jose, 2007.
 Rifai et al. (2011) Rifai, Salah, Vincent, Pascal, Muller, Xavier, Glorot, Xavier, and Bengio, Yoshua. Contractive AutoEncoders: Explicit Invariance During Feature Extraction. In ICML, 2011.
 Rodriguez et al. (2008) Rodriguez, Mikel D., Ahmed, Javed, and Shah, Mubarak. Action mach: a spatiotemporal maximum average correlation height filter for action recognition. In CVPR, 2008.
 Rumelhart & Zipser (1986) Rumelhart, D. E. and Zipser, D. Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1. chapter Feature discovery by competitive learning, pp. 151–193. MIT Press, 1986.
 Schuldt et al. (2004) Schuldt, C., Laptev, I., and Caputo, B. Recognizing human actions: a local svm approach. In Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on, 2004.
 Shin & Ghosh (1991) Shin, Yoan and Ghosh, Joydeep. The pisigma network: An efficient higherorder neural network for pattern classification and function approximation. In International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 1991.
 Taylor et al. (2010) Taylor, Graham W., Fergus, Rob, LeCun, Yann, and Bregler, Christoph. Convolutional learning of spatiotemporal features. In Proceedings of the 11th European conference on Computer vision: Part VI, ECCV’10, 2010.
 Wang et al. (2009) Wang, Heng, Ullah, Muhammad Muneeb, Kläser, Alexander, Laptev, Ivan, and Schmid, Cordelia. Evaluation of local spatiotemporal features for action recognition. In University of Central Florida, U.S.A, 2009.
 Watson & Albert J. Ahumada (1985) Watson, Andrew B. and Albert J. Ahumada, Jr. Model of human visualmotion sensing. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, 2(2):322–341, Feb 1985.
 Zetzsche & Nuding (2005) Zetzsche, Christoph and Nuding, Ulrich. Nonlinear and higherorder approaches to the encoding of natural scenes. Network (Bristol, England), 16(23):191–221, 2005.
Comments
There are no comments yet.