Recurrent Processing in V1/V2 Contributes to Categorization of Natural Scenes

Koivisto, Mika; Railo, Henry; Revonsuo, Antti; Vanni, Simo; Salminen-Vaparanta, Niina

doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3074-10.2011

Cited by 100 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternatively, it could be the case that target detection tasks already reflect some degree of influence from recurrent processing. In accordance with this latter view, recent reports have cited recurrent processing effects occurring as early as 100-150 msec (Koivisto, Railo, Revonsuo, Vanni, & SalminenVaparanta, 2011;Roland, 2010;Bar et al, 2006;Foxe & Simpson, 2002;Lamme & Roelfsema, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

The Limits of Feedforward Vision: Recurrent Processing Promotes Robust Object Recognition when Objects Are Degraded

Wyatte

Curran²,

O’Reilly³

2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

107

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ Everyday vision requires robustness to a myriad of environmental factors that degrade stimuli. Foreground clutter can occlude objects of interest, and complex lighting and shadows can decrease the contrast of items. How does the brain recognize visual objects despite these low-quality inputs? On the basis of predictions from a model of object recognition that contains excitatory feedback, we hypothesized that recurrent processing would promote robust recognition when objects were degraded by strengthening bottom-up signals that were weakened because of occlusion and contrast reduction. To test this hypothesis, we used backward masking to interrupt the processing of partially occluded and contrast reduced images during a categorization experiment. As predicted by the model, we found significant interactions between the mask and occlusion and the mask and contrast, such that the recognition of heavily degraded stimuli was differentially impaired by masking. The model provided a close fit of these results in an isomorphic version of the experiment with identical stimuli. The model also provided an intuitive explanation of the interactions between the mask and degradations, indicating that masking interfered specifically with the extensive recurrent processing necessary to amplify and resolve highly degraded inputs, whereas less degraded inputs did not require much amplification and could be rapidly resolved, making them less susceptible to masking. Together, the results of the experiment and the accompanying model simulations illustrate the limits of feedforward vision and suggest that object recognition is better characterized as a highly interactive, dynamic process that depends on the coordination of multiple brain areas. ■

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

The Limits of Feedforward Vision: Recurrent Processing Promotes Robust Object Recognition when Objects Are Degraded

Wyatte

Curran²,

O’Reilly³

2012

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

107

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On such modular formulations, the purpose of vision is to construct objective models of the world-a process that would be disturbed if it could be influenced by language (or other high-level factors, such as desires or expectations). However, if we consider that the real purpose of perceptual systems is to help guide behavior according to incomplete and underdetermined inputs, and that perception is at its core an inferential process (5,9,(63)(64)(65)(66)(67)(68)(69), then perception needs all of the help it can get. If tuning the visual system can make it more sensitive to a class of stimuli or a perceptual dimension that is currently task-relevant, then having a highly permeable perceptual system that allows for influences outside vision, including language, can be viewed as highly adaptive.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness

Lupyan

Ward

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

247

248

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Linguistic labels (e.g., "chair") seem to activate visual properties of the objects to which they refer. Here we investigated whether language-based activation of visual representations can affect the ability to simply detect the presence of an object. We used continuous flash suppression to suppress visual awareness of familiar objects while they were continuously presented to one eye. Participants made simple detection decisions, indicating whether they saw any image. Hearing a verbal label before the simple detection task changed performance relative to an uninformative cue baseline. Valid labels improved performance relative to no-label baseline trials. Invalid labels decreased performance. Labels affected both sensitivity (d′) and response times. In addition, we found that the effectiveness of labels varied predictably as a function of the match between the shape of the stimulus and the shape denoted by the label. Together, the findings suggest that facilitated detection of invisible objects due to language occurs at a perceptual rather than semantic locus. We hypothesize that when information associated with verbal labels matches stimulus-driven activity, language can provide a boost to perception, propelling an otherwise invisible image into awareness.vision | top-down effects | CFS | penetrability of perception

show abstract

“…de Graaf, Cornelsen, Jacobs, & Sack, 2011;Jacobs, de Graaf, Goebel, & Sack, 2012;Koivisto, Railo, Revonsuo, Vanni, & Salminen-Vaparanta, 2011). Jacobs et al (2012) compared the critical time windows of V1 activity in behavioral priming and visual awareness.…”

Section: Evidence Consistent With the Feedback Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why is “blindsight” blind? A new perspective on primary visual cortex, recurrent activity and visual awareness

Silvanto

2015

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neuropsychological phenomenon of blindsight has been taken to suggest that the primary visual cortex (V1) plays a unique role in visual awareness, and that extrastriate activation needs to be fed back to V1 in order for the content of that activation to be consciously perceived. The aim of this review is to evaluate this theoretical framework and to revisit its key tenets. Firstly, is blindsight truly a dissociation of awareness and visual detection? Secondly, is there sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that the loss of awareness resulting from a V1 lesion simply reflects reduced extrastriate responsiveness, rather than a unique role of V1 in conscious experience? Evaluation of these arguments and the empirical evidence leads to the conclusion that the loss of phenomenal awareness in blindsight may not be due to feedback activity in V1 being the hallmark awareness. On the basis of existing literature, an alternative explanation of blindsight is proposed. In this view, visual awareness is a "global" cognitive function as its hallmark is the availability of information to a large number of perceptual and cognitive systems; this requires inter-areal long-range synchronous oscillatory activity. For these oscillations to arise, a specific temporal profile of neuronal activity is required, which is established through recurrent feedback activity involving V1 and the extrastriate cortex. When V1 is lesioned, the loss of recurrent activity prevents inter-areal networks on the basis of oscillatory activity. However, as limited amount of input can reach extrastriate cortex and some extrastriate neuronal selectivity is preserved, computations involving comparison of neural firing rates within a cortical area remain possible. This enables "local" read-out from specific brain regions, allowing for the detection and discrimination of basic visual attributes. Thus blindsight is blind due to lack of "global" long-range synchrony, and it functions via "local" neural readout from extrastriate areas.

show abstract

Recurrent Processing in V1/V2 Contributes to Categorization of Natural Scenes

Cited by 100 publications

References 26 publications

The Limits of Feedforward Vision: Recurrent Processing Promotes Robust Object Recognition when Objects Are Degraded

The Limits of Feedforward Vision: Recurrent Processing Promotes Robust Object Recognition when Objects Are Degraded

Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness

Why is “blindsight” blind? A new perspective on primary visual cortex, recurrent activity and visual awareness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About