Observers can learn the likely locations of salient distractors in visual search, reducing their potential to cause interference. While there is agreement that this involves positional suppression of the likely distractor location(s), it is contentious at which stage the suppression operates: the search-guiding priority map, which integrates feature-contrast signals (e.g., generated by a red amongst green or a diamond amongst circular items) across dimensions, or the distractor-defining dimension. On the latter, dimension-based account (Sauter et al., 2018), processing of, say, a shape-defined target should be unaffected by distractor suppression when the distractor is defined by color, because in this case only color signals would be suppressed. At odds with this, Wang & Theeuwes (2018a) found slowed processing of the target when it appeared at the likely (vs. an unlikely) distractor location, consistent with priority-map-based suppression. Adopting their paradigm, the present study replicated this target location effect. Crucially, however, changing the paradigm by making the target appear as likely at the frequent as at any of the rare distractor locations and making the distractor/non-distractor color assignment consistent abolished the target location effect, without impacting the reduced interference for distractors at the frequent location. These findings support a flexible locus of spatial distractor suppressionpriority-map-or dimension-based-depending on the prominence of distractor 'cues' provided by the paradigm.
Observers can learn locations where salient distractors appear frequently to reduce potential interference—an effect attributed to better suppression of distractors at frequent locations. But how distractor suppression is implemented in the visual cortex and within the frontoparietal attention networks remains unclear. We used fMRI and a regional distractor-location learning paradigm with two types of distractors defined in either the same (orientation) or a different (color) dimension to the target to investigate this issue. fMRI results showed that BOLD signals in early visual cortex were significantly reduced for distractors (as well as targets) occurring at the frequent versus rare locations, mirroring behavioral patterns. This reduction was more robust with same-dimension distractors. Crucially, behavioral interference was correlated with distractor-evoked visual activity only for same- (but not different-) dimension distractors. Moreover, with different- (but not same-) dimension distractors, a color-processing area within the fusiform gyrus was activated more when a distractor was present in the rare region versus being absent and more with a distractor in the rare versus frequent locations. These results support statistical learning of frequent distractor locations involving regional suppression in early visual cortex and point to differential neural mechanisms of distractor handling with different- versus same-dimension distractors.
Stereo “3D” depth perception requires the visual system to extract binocular disparities between the two eyes' images. Several current models of this process, based on the known physiology of primary visual cortex (V1), do this by computing a piecewise-frontoparallel local cross-correlation between the left and right eye's images. The size of the “window” within which detectors examine the local cross-correlation corresponds to the receptive field size of V1 neurons. This basic model has successfully captured many aspects of human depth perception. In particular, it accounts for the low human stereoresolution for sinusoidal depth corrugations, suggesting that the limit on stereoresolution may be set in primary visual cortex. An important feature of the model, reflecting a key property of V1 neurons, is that the initial disparity encoding is performed by detectors tuned to locally uniform patches of disparity. Such detectors respond better to square-wave depth corrugations, since these are locally flat, than to sinusoidal corrugations which are slanted almost everywhere. Consequently, for any given window size, current models predict better performance for square-wave disparity corrugations than for sine-wave corrugations at high amplitudes. We have recently shown that this prediction is not borne out: humans perform no better with square-wave than with sine-wave corrugations, even at high amplitudes. The failure of this prediction raised the question of whether stereoresolution may actually be set at later stages of cortical processing, perhaps involving neurons tuned to disparity slant or curvature. Here we extend the local cross-correlation model to include existing physiological and psychophysical evidence indicating that larger disparities are detected by neurons with larger receptive fields (a size/disparity correlation). We show that this simple modification succeeds in reconciling the model with human results, confirming that stereoresolution for disparity gratings may indeed be limited by the size of receptive fields in primary visual cortex.
Stereo vision is an area in which we are increasingly able to construct detailed numerical models of the computations carried out by cerebral cortex. Piecewise-frontoparallel cross-correlation is one such model, closely based on the known physiology and able to explain important aspects of human stereo depth perception. Here, we show that it predicts important differences in the ability to detect disparity gratings with square-wave vs. sine-wave profiles. In particular, the model can detect square-wave gratings up to much higher disparity amplitudes than sine-wave gratings. We test this prediction in human subjects and find that it is not borne out. Rather there seems to be little or no difference between the detectability of square- and sine-wave disparity gratings for human subjects. We conclude that the model needs further refinement in order to capture this aspect of human stereo vision.
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.