Eccentricity biases of object categories are evident in visual working memory

Yoo, Sang-Ah; Chong, Sang Chul

doi:10.1080/13506285.2012.663416

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While speculative, it is possible that intrinsic central visual advantages in visual processing, distracter inhibition, and detailed object recognition (Linnell and Humphreys 2004; Chen and Treisman 2008; Yoo and Chong 2012) might be related in part to an intrinsic bias of this network towards the fovea. This explanation is in line with a recent proposal regarding the roles of central and far-peripheral V1 in attentional control (Zhaoping, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This central-peripheral difference in attentional effects is corroborated by the observation that central visual attention enhances activity throughout the ventral visual processing stream, whereas peripheral visual attention enhances activity throughout the dorsal visual processing stream (Bressler et al, 2013). Central visual biases have also been documented for cognitive operations such as visual working memory (Yoo and Chong, 2012), spatial prioritization (Linnell and Humphreys, 2004), and distractor inhibition (Chen and Treismann, 2008). Conversely, peripheral visual biases have been documented for cognitive operations such as cross-modal processing (Eckert et al, 2008; Cate et al, 2009; Gleiss and Kayser, 2013; Griffis et al, 2015a) and threat detection (Bayle et al, 2009; Gomez et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retinotopic patterns of functional connectivity between V1 and large-scale brain networks during resting fixation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychophysical and neurobiological evidence suggests that central and peripheral vision are specialized for different functions. This specialization of function might be expected to lead to differences in the large-scale functional interactions of early cortical areas that represent central and peripheral visual space. Here, we characterize differences in whole-brain functional connectivity among sectors in primary visual cortex (V1) corresponding to central, near-peripheral, and far-peripheral vision during resting fixation. Importantly, our analyses reveal that eccentricity sectors in V1 have different functional connectivity with non-visual areas associated with large-scale brain networks. Regions associated with the fronto-parietal control network are most strongly connected with central sectors of V1, regions associated with the cingulo-opercular control network are most strongly connected with near-peripheral sectors of V1, and regions associated with the default mode and auditory networks are most strongly connected with far-peripheral sectors of V1. Additional analyses suggest that similar patterns are present during eyes-closed rest. These results suggest that different types of visual information may be prioritized by large-scale brain networks with distinct functional profiles, and provide insights into how the small-scale functional specialization within early visual regions such as V1 relates to the large-scale organization of functionally distinct whole-brain networks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retinotopic patterns of functional connectivity between V1 and large-scale brain networks during resting fixation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The functionality of central vision is different from peripheral vision. Central vision is used for fixation and has a higher acuity that makes it useful for tasks such as reading and object identification (Larson & Loschky, 2009;Pelli et al, 2007;Trouilloud et al, 2020;Yoo & Chong, 2012) . The majority of the visual field comprises peripheral vision, which has lower acuity but is responsible for visual tasks such as visual search and getting the gist of a scene (Larson & Loschky, 2009;Rosenholtz, 2016;Trouilloud et al, 2020) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontal cortical regions associated with attention connect more strongly to central than peripheral V1

Sims

Demirayak

Cedotal

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Central and peripheral vision are important for distinct aspects of everyday life. We use central vision to read and peripheral vision to get the gist of a scene. To understand how these differences are reflected in connectivity between V1 and higher-order cognitive areas, we examined the differential connectivity of V1 that represent central and peripheral vision. We used diffusion-weighted-imaging and resting-state blood-oxygen-level-dependent data to examine structural and functional connectivity. The present results demonstrate strong evidence that centrally-representing portions of V1 are more strongly functionally and structurally connected to the fronto-parietal network than are peripherally representing portions of V1. This suggests that these patterns of connections between central V1 and the fronto-parietal network are direct and support attention-demanding visual tasks. Overall, our findings contribute to understanding how the human brain processes visual information and forms a baseline for any modifications in processing that might occur with training or experience.

show abstract

“…Humans have the ability to recognize objects quickly and efficiently over a large proportion of the visual field without needing to make eye movements. This object recognition ability decreases robustly with increasing eccentricity or viewing angle (Larson and Loschky, 2009 ; Strasburger et al, 2011 ; Yao et al, 2011 ; Yoo and Chong, 2012 ). Object recognition is thought to be mediated by hierarchical processing in the visual cortex (V1), where signals pass from the primary V1 to the ventral and lateral visual cortices (Grill-Spector, 2003 ; Schwarzlose et al, 2008 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Behavioral analyses have indicated that visual working-memory performance for faces decreases from the central to the peripheral visual field, whereas the corresponding performance for buildings remains unchanged across different eccentricities of up to 40° when the images were presented on a wide-view field (Yoo and Chong, 2012 ). Eccentricity biases were also demonstrated in FFA and PPA: the FFA preferred stimuli located in the central visual field, whereas the PPA preferred stimuli located in the peripheral visual field (Levy et al, 2001 ; Hasson et al, 2002 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural Responses to Central and Peripheral Objects in the Lateral Occipital Cortex

Wang¹,

Guo²,

Yan³

et al. 2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human object recognition and classification depend on the retinal location where the object is presented and decrease as eccentricity increases. The lateral occipital complex (LOC) is thought to be preferentially involved in the processing of objects, and its neural responses exhibit category biases to objects presented in the central visual field. However, the nature of LOC neural responses to central and peripheral objects remains largely unclear. In the present study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and a wide-view presentation system to investigate neural responses to four categories of objects (faces, houses, animals, and cars) in the primary visual cortex (V1) and the lateral visual cortex, including the LOC and the retinotopic areas LO-1 and LO-2. In these regions, the neural responses to objects decreased as the distance between the location of presentation and center fixation increased, which is consistent with the diminished perceptual ability that was found for peripherally presented images. The LOC and LO-2 exhibited significantly positive neural responses to all eccentricities (0–55°), but LO-1 exhibited significantly positive responses only to central eccentricities (0–22°). By measuring the ratio relative to V1 (RRV1), we further demonstrated that eccentricity, category and the interaction between them significantly affected neural processing in these regions. LOC, LO-1, and LO-2 exhibited larger RRV1s when stimuli were presented at an eccentricity of 0° compared to when they were presented at the greater eccentricities. In LOC and LO-2, the RRV1s for images of faces, animals and cars showed an increasing trend when the images were presented at eccentricities of 11 to 33°. However, the RRV1s for houses showed a decreasing trend in LO-1 and no difference in the LOC and LO-2. We hypothesize, that when houses and the images in the other categories were presented in the peripheral visual field, they were processed via different strategies in the lateral visual cortex.

show abstract

Eccentricity biases of object categories are evident in visual working memory

Cited by 5 publications

References 27 publications

Retinotopic patterns of functional connectivity between V1 and large-scale brain networks during resting fixation

Retinotopic patterns of functional connectivity between V1 and large-scale brain networks during resting fixation

Frontal cortical regions associated with attention connect more strongly to central than peripheral V1

Neural Responses to Central and Peripheral Objects in the Lateral Occipital Cortex

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About