Real-World Scene Representations in High-Level Visual Cortex: It's the Spaces More Than the Places

Real-world scenes are incredibly complex and heterogeneous, yet we are able to identify and categorize them effortlessly. In humans, the ventral temporal parahippocampal place area (PPA) has been implicated in scene processing, but scene information is contained in many visual areas, leaving their specific contributions unclear. Although early theories of PPA emphasized its role in spatial processing, more recent reports of its function have emphasized semantic or contextual processing. Here, using functional imaging, we reconstructed the organization of scene representations across human ventral visual cortex by analyzing the distributed response to 96 diverse real-world scenes. We found that, although individual scenes could be decoded in both PPA and early visual cortex (EVC), the structure of representations in these regions was vastly different. In both regions, spatial rather than semantic factors defined the structure of representations. However, in PPA, representations were defined primarily by the spatial factor of expanse (open, closed) and in EVC primarily by distance (near, far). Furthermore, independent behavioral ratings of expanse and distance correlated strongly with representations in PPA and peripheral EVC, respectively. In neither region was content (manmade, natural) a major contributor to the overall organization. Furthermore, the response of PPA could not be used to decode the high-level semantic category of scenes even when spatial factors were held constant, nor could category be decoded across different distances. These findings demonstrate, contrary to recent reports, that the response PPA primarily reflects spatial, not categorical or contextual, aspects of real-world scenes.

[1]  A. Elo The rating of chessplayers, past and present , 1978 .

[2]  Richard S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Learning to find your way: a role for the human hippocampal formation , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[3]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  A cortical representation of the local visual environment , 1998, Nature.

[5]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  An Area within Human Ventral Cortex Sensitive to “Building” Stimuli Evidence and Implications , 1998, Neuron.

[6]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Topographical disorientation: a synthesis and taxonomy. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[7]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  The Parahippocampal Place Area Recognition, Navigation, or Encoding? , 1999, Neuron.

[8]  R. Desimone,et al.  Clustering of perirhinal neurons with similar properties following visual experience in adult monkeys , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[9]  Hanna Damasio,et al.  The neuroanatomical correlates of route learning impairment , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  Talma Hendler,et al.  Center–periphery organization of human object areas , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  A. Ishai,et al.  Distributed and Overlapping Representations of Faces and Objects in Ventral Temporal Cortex , 2001, Science.

[12]  Talma Hendler,et al.  Eccentricity Bias as an Organizing Principle for Human High-Order Object Areas , 2002, Neuron.

[13]  Mitsuru Kawamura,et al.  Pure Topographical Disorientation —The Anatomical Basis of Landmark Agnosia , 2002, Cortex.

[14]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Statistics of natural image categories , 2003, Network.

[15]  M. Cherrier,et al.  Agnosia for scenes in topographagnosia , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  Paul E. Downing,et al.  Viewpoint-Specific Scene Representations in Human Parahippocampal Cortex , 2003, Neuron.

[17]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Modeling the Shape of the Scene: A Holistic Representation of the Spatial Envelope , 2001, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[18]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[19]  G. Winocur,et al.  “I have often walked down this street before”: fMRI Studies on the hippocampus and other structures during mental navigation of an old environment , 2004, Hippocampus.

[20]  M. D’Esposito,et al.  Category-specific modulation of inferior temporal activity during working memory encoding and maintenance. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[21]  John M. Henderson,et al.  Cortical activation to indoor versus outdoor scenes: an fMRI study , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[22]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Information-based functional brain mapping. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Cortical correlates of face and scene inversion: A comparison , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  Guillaume A. Rousselet,et al.  Processing scene context: Fast categorization and object interference , 2007, Vision Research.

[25]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Visual scene processing in familiar and unfamiliar environments. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  Clara D. Martin,et al.  Controlling for interstimulus perceptual variance abolishes N170 face selectivity , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[27]  Lee Ryan,et al.  The effect of scene context on episodic object recognition: Parahippocampal cortex mediates memory encoding and retrieval success , 2007, Hippocampus.

[28]  Michèle Fabre-Thorpe,et al.  Effects of task requirements on rapid natural scene processing: from common sensory encoding to distinct decisional mechanisms. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Differential parahippocampal and retrosplenial involvement in three types of visual scene recognition. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[30]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Position selectivity in scene- and object-responsive occipitotemporal regions. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[31]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Only some spatial patterns of fMRI response are read out in task performance , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[32]  Alexander Borst,et al.  How does Nature Program Neuron Types? , 2008, Front. Neurosci..

[33]  J. Gallant,et al.  Identifying natural images from human brain activity , 2008, Nature.

[34]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  The distribution of category and location information across object-selective regions in human visual cortex , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Russell A. Epstein Parahippocampal and retrosplenial contributions to human spatial navigation , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  Relating retinotopic and object-selective responses in human lateral occipital cortex. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[37]  Lester C. Loschky,et al.  Localized information is necessary for scene categorization, including the Natural/Man-made distinction. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[38]  Jiri Najemnik,et al.  Eye movement statistics in humans are consistent with an optimal search strategy. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[39]  M. Bar,et al.  Scenes Unseen: The Parahippocampal Cortex Intrinsically Subserves Contextual Associations, Not Scenes or Places Per Se , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[40]  Markus Bauer,et al.  No evidence for widespread synchronized networks in binocular rivalry: MEG frequency tagging entrains primarily early visual cortex. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[41]  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte,et al.  Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience Systems Neuroscience , 2022 .

[42]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Feedback of pVisual Object Information to Foveal Retinotopic Cortex , 2008, Nature Neuroscience.

[43]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Matching Categorical Object Representations in Inferior Temporal Cortex of Man and Monkey , 2008, Neuron.

[44]  Moshe Bar,et al.  Integrated Contextual Representation for Objects' Identities and Their Locations , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[45]  Benjamin D. Singer,et al.  Retinotopic Organization of Human Ventral Visual Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[46]  G. Aguirre,et al.  Different spatial scales of shape similarity representation in lateral and ventral LOC. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[47]  Dirk B. Walther,et al.  Natural Scene Categories Revealed in Distributed Patterns of Activity in the Human Brain , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[48]  Lester C. Loschky,et al.  The contributions of central versus peripheral vision to scene gist recognition. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[49]  Michelle R. Greene,et al.  Recognition of natural scenes from global properties: Seeing the forest without representing the trees , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[50]  M. Lappe,et al.  Motor signals in visual localization. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[51]  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte,et al.  Comparison of multivariate classifiers and response normalizations for pattern-information fMRI , 2010, NeuroImage.

[52]  Dwight J. Kravitz,et al.  High-level visual object representations are constrained by position. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[53]  Functional lateralization of face processing , 2010 .

[54]  Aude Oliva,et al.  Estimating perception of scene layout properties from global image features. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[55]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Perception and memory across viewpoint changes in moving images. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[56]  Emily J. Ward,et al.  How reliable are visual context effects in the parahippocampal place area? , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[57]  Dwight J. Kravitz,et al.  Cortical representations of bodies and faces are strongest in their commonly experienced configurations , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[58]  Soojin Park,et al.  Disentangling Scene Content from Spatial Boundary: Complementary Roles for the Parahippocampal Place Area and Lateral Occipital Complex in Representing Real-World Scenes , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[59]  Dwight J. Kravitz,et al.  A new neural framework for visuospatial processing , 2011, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.