Incongruent object/context relationships in visual scenes: Where are they processed in the brain?

Rémy, François; Vayssière, Nathalie; Pins, Delphine; Boucart, Muriel; Fabre‐Thorpe, Michèle

doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2013.10.008

Cited by 38 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the general principle of associative processing may apply broadly across scene-selective ROIs, there is some evidence that within the parahippocampal region, anterior and posterior regions may support different kinds of associations [34,37,40,41]. In particular, we posit that anterior regions process non-spatial associations such as those realized in the ID condition, whereas posterior regions process spatial associations such as those realized in the SP condition.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…To be clear, a functional distinction between anterior and posterior PPA has been reported previously. In particular, this distinction has been based on PPA responses when processing objects associated with spatial contexts (i.e., contexts associated with specific places, for example, an oven and a kitchen) and when processing objects associated with non-spatial contexts (i.e., contexts not tied to specific places, for example, champagne with New Year’s Eve) [28,34,37,40,41]. Here we explicitly investigated this spatial/non-spatial distinction by isolating the two association types in simple, novel stimuli and then relating these controlled stimuli to the processing of real-world scenes containing similar associations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Associative Processing Is Inherent in Scene Perception

Aminoff

Tarr

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How are complex visual entities such as scenes represented in the human brain? More concretely, along what visual and semantic dimensions are scenes encoded in memory? One hypothesis is that global spatial properties provide a basis for categorizing the neural response patterns arising from scenes. In contrast, non-spatial properties, such as single objects, also account for variance in neural responses. The list of critical scene dimensions has continued to grow—sometimes in a contradictory manner—coming to encompass properties such as geometric layout, big/small, crowded/sparse, and three-dimensionality. We demonstrate that these dimensions may be better understood within the more general framework of associative properties. That is, across both the perceptual and semantic domains, features of scene representations are related to one another through learned associations. Critically, the components of such associations are consistent with the dimensions that are typically invoked to account for scene understanding and its neural bases. Using fMRI, we show that non-scene stimuli displaying novel associations across identities or locations recruit putatively scene-selective regions of the human brain (the parahippocampal/lingual region, the retrosplenial complex, and the transverse occipital sulcus/occipital place area). Moreover, we find that the voxel-wise neural patterns arising from these associations are significantly correlated with the neural patterns arising from everyday scenes providing critical evidence whether the same encoding principals underlie both types of processing. These neuroimaging results provide evidence for the hypothesis that the neural representation of scenes is better understood within the broader theoretical framework of associative processing. In addition, the results demonstrate a division of labor that arises across scene-selective regions when processing associations and scenes providing better understanding of the functional roles of each region within the cortical network that mediates scene processing.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative Processing Is Inherent in Scene Perception

Aminoff

Tarr

2015

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, people were presented with composites of two scenes rather than a figure on a potentially inconsistent background. Neuroimaging studies have shown that many different areas contribute to the processing of inconsistent scenes (Gronau, Neta, & Bar, 2008;Mudrik, Lamy, & Deouell, 2010;Rémy, Vayssière, Pins, Boucart, & Fabre-Thorpe, 2014). Changes in activity have been reported in the lateral occipital complex, parahippocampal place area, and prefrontal cortex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scene categorization in the presence of a distractor

Lukavský

2019

Journal of Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans display a very good understanding of the content in briefly presented photographs. To achieve this understanding, humans rely on information from both high-acuity central vision and peripheral vision. Previous studies have investigated the relative contribution of central and peripheral vision. However, the role of attention in this task remains unclear. In this study, we presented composite images with a scene in the center and another scene in the periphery. The two channels conveyed different information, and the participants were asked to focus on one channel while ignoring the other. In two experiments, we showed that (a) people are better at recognizing the central part, (b) the conflicting signal in the ignored part hinders performance, and (c) this effect is true for both parts (focusing on the central or peripheral part). We conclude that scene recognition is based on both central and peripheral information, even when participants are instructed to focus only on one part of the image and ignore the other. In contrast to the zoom-out hypothesis, we propose that the gist recognition process should be interpreted in terms of the evidence accumulation model in which information from the to-be-ignored parts is also included.

show abstract

“…In human studies, parahippocampal cortex activity is increased during imaginary or virtual navigation and spatial learning tasks (Aguirre, Detre, Alsop, & D'Esposito, ; Maguire, Frith, Burgess, Donnett, & O'Keefe, ; Weniger et al, ). However, recent human functional neuroimaging studies proposed that activation of the parahippocampal cortex is more related to contextual associations that are not restricted to location contextual information (Aminoff, Gronau, & Bar, ; Bar, Aminoff, & Ishai, ; Remy, Vayssiere, Pins, Boucart, & Fabre‐Thorpe, ), although this perspective still faces rigorous challenge (Mullally & Maguire, ; Remy et al, ). To our knowledge, our study is the first to relate parahippocampal structural changes to memory subcomponent dysfunction in humans.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diminution of context association memory structure in subjects with subjective cognitive decline

Fan

Lai

Chen

et al. 2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alzheimer's disease (AD) progresses insidiously from the preclinical stage to dementia. While people with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) have normal cognitive performance, some may be in the preclinical stage of AD. Neurofibrillary tangles appear first in the transentorhinal cortex, followed by the entorhinal cortex in the clinically silent stage of AD. We expected the earliest changes in subjects with SCD to occur in medial temporal subfields other than the hippocampal proper. These selective structural changes would affect specific memory subcomponents. We used the Family Picture subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scale-III, which was modified to separately compute character, activity, and location subscores for episodic memory subcomponents. We recruited 43 subjects with SCD, 44 subjects with amnesic mild cognitive impairment, and 34 normal controls. MRI was used to assess cortical thickness, subcortical gray matter volume, and fractional anisotropy. The results demonstrated that SCD subjects showed significant cortical atrophy in their bilateral parahippocampus and perirhinal and the left entorhinal cortices but not in their hippocampal regions. SCD subjects also exhibited significantly decreased mean fractional anisotropy in their bilateral uncinate fasciculi. The diminution of cortical thickness over the mesial temporal subfields corresponded to brain areas with early tangle deposition, and early degradation of the uncinate fasciculus was in accordance with the retrogenesis hypothesis. The parahippocampus and perirhinal cortex contribute mainly to context association memory while the entorhinal cortex, along with the uncinate fasciculus, contributes to content-related contextual memory. We proposed that context association and related memory structures are vulnerable in the SCD stage.

show abstract

Incongruent object/context relationships in visual scenes: Where are they processed in the brain?

Cited by 38 publications

References 57 publications

Associative Processing Is Inherent in Scene Perception

Associative Processing Is Inherent in Scene Perception

Scene categorization in the presence of a distractor

Diminution of context association memory structure in subjects with subjective cognitive decline

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About