Representational differences between line drawings and photographs of natural scenes: A dissociation between multi-voxel pattern analysis and repetition suppression

O'Connell, Thomas; Sederberg, Per B.; Walther, Dirk

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.06.013

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings are consistent with other studies using fMR‐adaptation that have shown a release from adaptation to changes in the image of the same exemplar (Andrews & Ewbank, 2004; Byrne et al, 2016; Davies‐Thompson et al, 2009, 2013; Eger et al, 2004; Ewbank et al, 2005; Grill‐Spector et al, 1999; Lowe et al, 2017; O'Connell & Chun, 2018; Pourtois et al, 2005a, 2005b). For example, O'Connell et al (2018) showed in the PPA that successive presentations of two line drawings or two photographs of the same scene resulted in a reduced response (adaptation) compared with the presentation of two different scenes. However, when a line drawing and then a photograph of the same scene were presented in sequence, thus changing the texture properties, there was a release from adaptation (higher response).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The representation of shape and texture in category‐selective regions of ventral‐temporal cortex

Coggan

Watson

Wang

et al. 2022

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroimaging studies using univariate and multivariate approaches have shown that the fusiform face area (FFA) and parahippocampal place area (PPA) respond selectively to images of faces and places. The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which this selectivity to faces or places is based on the shape or texture properties of the images. Faces and houses were filtered to manipulate their texture properties, while preserving the shape properties (spatial envelope) of the images. In Experiment 1, multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA) showed that patterns of fMRI response to faces and houses in FFA and PPA were predicted by the shape properties, but not by the texture properties of the image. In Experiment 2, a univariate analysis (fMR‐adaptation) showed that responses in the FFA and PPA were sensitive to changes in both the shape and texture properties of the image. These findings can be explained by the spatial scale of the representation of images in the FFA and PPA. At a coarser scale (revealed by MVPA), the neural selectivity to faces and houses is sensitive to variation in the shape properties of the image. However, at a finer scale (revealed by fMR‐adaptation), the neural selectivity is sensitive to the texture properties of the image. By combining these neuroimaging paradigms, our results provide insights into the spatial scale of the neural representation of faces and places in the ventral‐temporal cortex.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The representation of shape and texture in category‐selective regions of ventral‐temporal cortex

Coggan

Watson

Wang

et al. 2022

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cue-specific and cue-independent representations were revealed by fMRIa and MVPS, respectively. These two approaches can yield inconsistent results 17,[28][29][30][31][32] , which may indicate that they interrogate different aspects of neural operations. One hypothesis posits that fMRIa is related to the processing of neuronal inputs, whereas MVPS reflects neuronal output 17 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of Cue-specific and Cue-independent Spatial Representations for Landmarks and Self-motion Cues in Human Retrosplenial Cortex

Chen

Wei

Wolbers

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landmark-based and self-motion-based navigation are two fundamental forms of spatial navigation, which involve distinct cognitive mechanisms. A critical question is whether these two navigation modes invoke common or distinct spatial representations for a given environment in the brain. While a number of electrophysiological studies in non-human animals have investigated this question but yielded inconsistent results, it still awaits rigorous investigation in humans. In the current study, we combined ultra-high field fMRI at 7T and desktop virtual reality with state-of-the-art fMRI data analysis techniques. Using a novel linear track navigation task, we dissociated the use of landmarks and self-motion cues, so that participants used different spatial cues to encode and retrieve the same set of spatial locations. Focusing on the retrosplenial cortex (RSC) and the hippocampus, we observed that RSC contained both cue-specific and cue-independent spatial representations, which were driven by objective location (where the participant was actually located) and subjective location (the participant’s self-reported location), respectively. The hippocampus showed strong functional coupling with RSC and exhibited a similar spatial coding scheme, but with reduced effect sizes. Taken together, the current study demonstrated for the first time concurrent cue-specific and cue-independent spatial representations in RSC in the same spatial context, suggesting that this area might transform cue-specific spatial inputs into coherent cue-independent spatial representations to guide navigation behavior.

show abstract

“…Attempts at photorealistic painting tend to come at a later age. Neural representations of scenes, objects and faces elicited by line drawings were found to be equivalent to those elicited by the corresponding color photographs in visual cortex [ 11 – 13 ], although the equivalence for scenes appears to be restricted to the level of scene categories, not scene identity [ 14 ]. These similarities of line drawings to photo-realistic depiction provide interesting insights into visual brain functions [ 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where to draw the line?

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We often take people’s ability to understand and produce line drawings for granted. But where should we draw lines, and why? We address psychological principles that underlie efficient representations of complex information in line drawings. First, 58 participants with varying degree of artistic experience produced multiple drawings of a small set of scenes by tracing contours on a digital tablet. Second, 37 independent observers ranked the drawings by how representative they are of the original photograph. Matching contours between drawings of the same scene revealed that the most consistently drawn contours tend to be drawn earlier. We generated half-images with the most- versus least-consistently drawn contours and asked 25 observers categorize the quickly presented scenes. Observers performed significantly better for the most compared to the least consistent half-images. The most consistently drawn contours were more likely to depict occlusion boundaries, whereas the least consistently drawn contours frequently depicted surface normals.

show abstract

Representational differences between line drawings and photographs of natural scenes: A dissociation between multi-voxel pattern analysis and repetition suppression

Cited by 10 publications

References 47 publications

The representation of shape and texture in category‐selective regions of ventral‐temporal cortex

The representation of shape and texture in category‐selective regions of ventral‐temporal cortex

Coexistence of Cue-specific and Cue-independent Spatial Representations for Landmarks and Self-motion Cues in Human Retrosplenial Cortex

Where to draw the line?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About