How long does it take for the human visual system to process a complex natural image? Subjectively, recognition of familiar objects and scenes appears to be virtually instantaneous, but measuring this processing time experimentally has proved difficult. Behavioural measures such as reaction times can be used, but these include not only visual processing but also the time required for response execution. However, event-related potentials (ERPs) can sometimes reveal signs of neural processing well before the motor output. Here we use a go/no-go categorization task in which subjects have to decide whether a previously unseen photograph, flashed on for just 20 ms, contains an animal. ERP analysis revealed a frontal negativity specific to no-go trials that develops roughly 150 ms after stimulus onset. We conclude that the visual processing needed to perform this highly demanding task can be achieved in under 150 ms.

No abstract

To reduce the information gap between human neuroimaging and macaque physiology and anatomy, we mapped fMRI signals produced by moving and stationary stimuli (random dots or lines) in fixating monkeys. Functional sensitivity was increased by a factor of approximately 5 relative to the BOLD technique by injecting a contrast agent (monocrystalline iron oxide nanoparticle [MION]). Areas identified as motion sensitive included V2, V3, MT/V5, vMST, FST, VIP, and FEF (with moving dots), as well as V4, TE, LIP, and PIP (with random lines). These regions sensitive for moving dots are largely in agreement with monkey single unit data and (except for V3A) with human fMRI results. Moving lines activate some regions that have not been previously implicated in motion processing. Overall, the results clarify the relationship between the motion pathway and the dorsal stream in primates.

Stereopsis, the perception of depth from small differences between the images in the two eyes, provides a rich model for investigating the cortical construction of surfaces and space. Although disparity-tuned cells have been found in a large number of areas in macaque visual cortex, stereoscopic processing in these areas has never been systematically compared using the same stimuli and analysis methods. In order to examine the global architecture of stereoscopic processing in primate visual cortex, we studied fMRI activity in alert, fixating human and macaque subjects. In macaques, we found strongest activation to near/far compared to zero disparity in areas V3, V3A, and CIPS. In humans, we found strongest activation to the same stimuli in areas V3A, V7, the V4d topolog (V4d-topo), and a caudal parietal disparity region (CPDR). Thus, in both primate species a small cluster of areas at the parieto-occipital junction appears to be specialized for stereopsis.

We compared three-dimensional structure-from-motion (3D-SFM) processing in awake monkeys and humans using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Occipital and midlevel extrastriate visual areas showed similar activation by 3D-SFM stimuli in both species. In contrast, intraparietal areas showed significant 3D-SFM activation in humans but not in monkeys. This suggests that human intraparietal cortex contains visuospatial processing areas that are not present in monkeys.To reconstruct the third dimension from a two-dimensional (2D) retinal image, our brain uses binocular as well as monocular cues such as shading, texture, and occlusion. Both humans and monkeys are also able to extract the 3D structure of an object from motion parallax cues that activate occipitoparietal areas in both species (1-3). Because neurons in the middle temporal area (MT/V5) are sensitive for speed gradients that reflect planes tilted in depth (4, see also 5), this area might play a crucial role in the extraction of depth from motion. Supporting evidence has been gleaned from a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study showing 3D-SFM sensitivity in the human MT/V5 complex (hMT/V5ϩ) (6 ). These human fMRI results raise a first question: To what extent can they be generalized to the primate visual system? Furthermore, anatomical evidence suggests that there might be functional differences between human and monkey intraparietal cortex: The intraparietal sulcus separates area 5 from area 7 in the monkey, whereas in humans these two areas belong to the superior parietal lobe. In addition, in humans, the intraparietal lobe separates area 7 from areas 39 and 40, which have no clear counterpart in monkeys (7 ). Therefore, our second goal was to determine whether monkey intraparietal cortex is as important for motion-dependent depth processing as implied by human imaging (6 ).To address these issues, we turned to recently developed fMRI techniques (8) in awake (9-12) rather than anesthetized (13-14 ) monkeys. By performing human fMRI with virtually identical experimental procedures as in the awake monkey fMRI experiments, reliable interspecies comparisons could be made.The stimuli were displays of nine randomly connected lines, rotating in depth, that created a clear 3D percept (movie S1). Control stimuli consisted of the same displays that were either static or moving in one plane. We controlled for potential attentional differences between the 3D and 2D conditions by using a 1-back task in humans, as well as a demanding high-acuity fixation task (8, 9) in both species.In line with earlier reports (4-6, 13), area MT/V5 was activated more by 3D than by 2D moving random-line displays. In addition, the area in the fundus of the superior temporal sulcus (FST) also exhibited significant 3D-SFM sensitivity (Fig. 1A). Figure 2A shows the (3D -2D) pattern of activation for a single human subject, and the average activation for a group of eight subjects is shown in Fig. 2B. These results are similar to those obtained in an earlier study in which so...

No abstract

The extent to which object identification is influenced by the background of the scene is still controversial. On the one hand, the global context of a scene might be considered as an ultimate representation, suggesting that object processing is performed almost systematically before scene context analysis. Alternatively, the gist of a scene could be extracted sufficiently early to be able to influence object categorization. It is thus essential to assess the processing time of scene context. In the present study, we used a go/no-go rapid visual categorization task in which subjects had to respond as fast as possible when they saw a "man-made environment", or a "natural environment", that was flashed for only 26 ms. "Man-made" and "natural" scenes were categorized with very high accuracy (both around 96%) and very short reaction times (median RT both around 390 ms). Compared with previous results from our group, these data demonstrate that global context categorization is remarkably fast: (1) it is as fast as object categorization [Fabre-Thorpe, M., Delorme, A., Marlot, C., & Thorpe, S. (2001). A limit to the speed of processing in ultra-rapid visual categorization of novel natural scenes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(2), 171-180]; (2) it is faster than contextual categorization at more detailed levels such as sea, mountain, indoor or urban contexts [Rousselet, G. A., Joubert, O. R., & Fabre-Thorpe, M. (2005). How long to get to the "gist" of real-world natural scenes? Visual Cognition, 12(6), 852-877]. Further analysis showed that the efficiency of contextual categorization was impaired by the presence of a salient object in the scene especially when the object was incongruent with the context. Processing of natural scenes might thus involve in parallel the extraction of the global gist of the scene and the concurrent object processing leading to categorization. These data also suggest early interactions between scene and object representations compatible with contextual influences on object categorization in a parallel network.

We compared neural substrates of two-dimensional shape processing in human and nonhuman primates using functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in awake subjects. The comparison of MR activity evoked by viewing intact and scrambled images of objects revealed shape-sensitive regions in occipital, temporal, and parietal cortex of both humans and macaques. Intraparietal cortex in monkeys was relatively more two-dimensional shape sensitive than that of humans. In both species, there was an interaction between scrambling and type of stimuli (grayscale images and drawings), but the effect of stimulus type was much stronger in monkeys than in humans. Shape-and motion-sensitive regions overlapped to some degree. However, this overlap was much more marked in humans than in monkeys. The shape-sensitive regions can be used to constrain the warping of monkey to human cortex and suggest a large expansion of lateral parietal and superior temporal cortex in humans compared with monkeys.