2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Representation of symmetry in the extrastriate visual cortex from temporal integration of parts: An EEG/ERP study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
33
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

5
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 74 publications
5
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, the SPN can be recorded when participants are engaged in either active symmetry discrimination or in some secondary task ( Höfel & Jacobsen, 2007a , 2007b ; Makin, Rampone, Pecchinenda, & Bertamini, 2013 ). Other SPN work has shown that the extrastriate symmetry network always responds to symmetry in the image, but can sometimes go beyond this and recover symmetry in the object, independent of changes in virtual view angle ( Makin, Rampone, & Bertamini, 2015 ) and despite partial occlusion ( Rampone, Makin, Tatlidil, & Bertamini, 2019 ). Finally, the steady-state visual evoked potential approach can be used to isolate the symmetry response in the odd harmonic frequencies ( Alp, Kohler, Kogo, Wagemans, & Norcia, 2018 ; Kohler et al., 2016 ; Norcia, Candy, Pettet, Vildavski, & Tyler, 2002 ) and the amplitude of this signal also scales with symmetry salience ( Oka, Victor, Conte, & Yanagida, 2007 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the SPN can be recorded when participants are engaged in either active symmetry discrimination or in some secondary task ( Höfel & Jacobsen, 2007a , 2007b ; Makin, Rampone, Pecchinenda, & Bertamini, 2013 ). Other SPN work has shown that the extrastriate symmetry network always responds to symmetry in the image, but can sometimes go beyond this and recover symmetry in the object, independent of changes in virtual view angle ( Makin, Rampone, & Bertamini, 2015 ) and despite partial occlusion ( Rampone, Makin, Tatlidil, & Bertamini, 2019 ). Finally, the steady-state visual evoked potential approach can be used to isolate the symmetry response in the odd harmonic frequencies ( Alp, Kohler, Kogo, Wagemans, & Norcia, 2018 ; Kohler et al., 2016 ; Norcia, Candy, Pettet, Vildavski, & Tyler, 2002 ) and the amplitude of this signal also scales with symmetry salience ( Oka, Victor, Conte, & Yanagida, 2007 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After all, previous studies have shown that the SPN indexes symmetry in the object when participants are attending to regularity, while it only indexes symmetry in the image when participants attend to colour (Makin et al, 2015). Furthermore, when participants attend to regularity, the SPN can be generated by partially occluded symmetry (Rampone, Makin, Tatlidil, & Bertamini, 2019). It seems that attention to regularity allows the system to go beyond image symmetry, and generate extraretinal, object-level symmetry representations, which show perceptual constancy.…”
Section: Future Work On Spn Primingmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…We thus broke the SPN into two separate time windows: 220–400 ms (early SPN) and 400–1,000 ms (late SPN). The decision to consider an early and late SPN separately is justified by recent research (Makin et al, 2016; Rampone et al, 2019; Wright, Makin, & Bertamini, 2017). In the early time window, amplitude has been found to maximally correlate with a quantitative index of perceptual goodness.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Briefly, the SPN is a relative component given by the difference in amplitude between ERPs generated by symmetrical (regular) and asymmetrical (irregular) images with same local information. It has negative amplitude and is generated by neurons in the extrastriate cortex and lateral occipital complex (LOC; Makin, Pecchinenda, & Bertamini, 2012; Makin et al, 2016; Rampone, Makin, Tatlidil, & Bertamini, 2019). The SPN is a well‐characterised neural signal, and its interpretation is consistent with fMRI (Chen, Kao, & Tyler, 2007; Keefe et al, 2018; Kohler, Clarke, Yakovleva, Liu, & Norcia, 2016; Sasaki, Vanduffel, Knutsen, Tyler, & Tootell, 2005; Tyler et al, 2005; Van Meel, Baeck, Gillebert, Wagemans, & Op de Beeck, 2019) and TMS evidence (Bona, Cattaneo, & Silvanto, 2016; Bona, Herbert, Toneatto, Silvanto, & Cattaneo, 2014; Cattaneo et al, 2014; Cattaneo, Bona, & Silvanto, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%