Human subjects are extremely efficient at categorizing natural scenes, despite the fact that different classes of natural scenes often share similar image statistics. Thus far, however, it is unknown where and how complex natural scene categories are encoded and discriminated in the brain. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and distributed pattern analysis to ask what regions of the brain can differentiate natural scene categories (such as forests vs mountains vs beaches). Using completely different exemplars of six natural scene categories for training and testing ensured that the classification algorithm was learning patterns associated with the category in general and not specific exemplars. We found that area V1, the parahippocampal place area (PPA), retrosplenial cortex (RSC), and lateral occipital complex (LOC) all contain information that distinguishes among natural scene categories. More importantly, correlations with human behavioral experiments suggest that the information present in the PPA, RSC, and LOC is likely to contribute to natural scene categorization by humans. Specifically, error patterns of predictions based on fMRI signals in these areas were significantly correlated with the behavioral errors of the subjects. Furthermore, both behavioral categorization performance and predictions from PPA exhibited a significant decrease in accuracy when scenes were presented up-down inverted. Together these results suggest that a network of regions, including the PPA, RSC, and LOC, contribute to the human ability to categorize natural scenes.
Humans are remarkably efficient at categorizing natural scenes. In fact, scene categories can be decoded from functional MRI (fMRI) data throughout the ventral visual cortex, including the primary visual cortex, the parahippocampal place area (PPA), and the retrosplenial cortex (RSC). Here we ask whether, and where, we can still decode scene category if we reduce the scenes to mere lines. We collected fMRI data while participants viewed photographs and line drawings of beaches, city streets, forests, highways, mountains, and offices. Despite the marked difference in scene statistics, we were able to decode scene category from fMRI data for line drawings just as well as from activity for color photographs, in primary visual cortex through PPA and RSC. Even more remarkably, in PPA and RSC, error patterns for decoding from line drawings were very similar to those from color photographs. These data suggest that, in these regions, the information used to distinguish scene category is similar for line drawings and photographs. To determine the relative contributions of local and global structure to the human ability to categorize scenes, we selectively removed long or short contours from the line drawings. In a category-matching task, participants performed significantly worse when long contours were removed than when short contours were removed. We conclude that global scene structure, which is preserved in line drawings, plays an integral part in representing scene categories.
Within the range of images that we might categorize as a “beach”, for example, some will be more representative of that category than others. Here we first confirmed that humans could categorize “good” exemplars better than “bad” exemplars of six scene categories and then explored whether brain regions previously implicated in natural scene categorization showed a similar sensitivity to how well an image exemplifies a category. In a behavioral experiment participants were more accurate and faster at categorizing good than bad exemplars of natural scenes. In an fMRI experiment participants passively viewed blocks of good or bad exemplars from the same six categories. A multi-voxel pattern classifier trained to discriminate among category blocks showed higher decoding accuracy for good than bad exemplars in the PPA, RSC and V1. This difference in decoding accuracy cannot be explained by differences in overall BOLD signal, as average BOLD activity was either equivalent or higher for bad than good scenes in these areas. These results provide further evidence that V1, RSC and the PPA not only contain information relevant for natural scene categorization, but their activity patterns mirror the fundamentally graded nature of human categories. Analysis of the image statistics of our good and bad exemplars shows that variability in low-level features and image structure is higher among bad than good exemplars. A simulation of our neuroimaging experiment suggests that such a difference in variance could account for the observed differences in decoding accuracy. These results are consistent with both low-level models of scene categorization and models that build categories around a prototype.
Traditional models of recognition and categorization proceed from registering low-level features, perceptually organizing that input, and linking it with stored representations. Recent evidence, however, suggests that this serial model may not be accurate, with object and category knowledge affecting rather than following early visual processing. Here, we show that the degree to which an image exemplifies its category influences how easily it is detected. Participants performed a two-alternative forced-choice task in which they indicated whether a briefly presented image was an intact or phase-scrambled scene photograph. Critically, the category of the scene is irrelevant to the detection task. We nonetheless found that participants “see” good images better, more accurately discriminating them from phase-scrambled images than bad scenes, and this advantage is apparent regardless of whether participants are asked to consider category during the experiment or not. We then demonstrate that good exemplars are more similar to same-category images than bad exemplars, influencing behavior in two ways: First, prototypical images are easier to detect, and second, intact good scenes are more likely than bad to have been primed by a previous trial.
While attentional effects in visual selection tasks have traditionally been assigned “top-down” or “bottom-up” origins, more recently it has been proposed that there are three major factors affecting visual selection: (1) physical salience, (2) current goals and (3) selection history. Here, we look further into selection history by investigating Priming of Pop-out (POP) and the Distractor Preview Effect (DPE), two inter-trial effects that demonstrate the influence of recent history on visual search performance. Using the Ratcliff diffusion model, we model observed saccadic selections from an oddball search experiment that included a mix of both POP and DPE conditions. We find that the Ratcliff diffusion model can effectively model the manner in which selection history affects current attentional control in visual inter-trial effects. The model evidence shows that bias regarding the current trial's most likely target color is the most critical parameter underlying the effect of selection history. Our results are consistent with the view that the 3-item color-oddball task used for POP and DPE experiments is best understood as an attentional decision making task.
Visual stimuli fade from awareness under retinal stabilization or careful fixation, a phenomenon documented by Troxler more than 200 years ago. Research on visual fading during normal visual fixation typically has been restricted to discrete, simple, low-contrast shapes presented peripherally against a uniform or textured background. In four experiments, we document a striking new visual fading effect in which entire photographs of scenes fade to a uniform luminance and hue during normal visual fixation. Critically, this "scene fading" can be induced almost instantaneously by some types of visual transients but not by others. These induced fading effects are sufficiently robust that they can be experienced by most observers in a single trial. Taken as a whole, the effects are inconsistent with simple contrast adaptation, gradual Troxler fading, or transient-induced fading. They are, however, consistent with the idea that small contrast decrements can induce fading of entire scenes. The methods provide a robust tool for the exploration of visual fading, and the results could have important implications for the role of filling-in and neural adaptation in our visual awareness of natural scenes and other complex stimuli.
Previous studies have shown that even in the context of fairly easy selection tasks, as is the case in a pop-out task, selection of the pop-out stimulus can be sped up (in terms of eye movements) when the target-defining feature repeats across trials. Here, we show that selection of a pop-out target can actually be delayed (in terms of saccadic latencies) and made less accurate (in terms of saccade accuracy) when the target-defining feature has recently been associated with distractor status. This effect was observed even though participants' task was to fixate color oddballs (when present) and simply press a button when their eyes reached the target to advance to the next trial. Importantly, the inter-trial effect was also observed in response time (time to advance to the next trial). In contrast, this response time effect was completely eliminated in a second experiment when eye movements were eliminated from the task. That is, when participants still had to press a button to advance to the next trial when an oddball target was present in the display (an oddball detection task experiment). This pattern of results closely links the "need for selection" in a task to the presence of an inter-trial bias of attention (and eye movements) in pop-out search.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.