How the Camel Lost Its Hump: The Impact of Object Typicality on Event-related Potential Signals in Object Decision

Using an object decision task, event-related potentials (ERPs), and minimum norm current source estimates, we investigated early spatiotemporal aspects of cortical activation elicited by line drawings that were manipulated on two dimensions: authenticity and typicality. Authentic objects were those that match real-world experience, whereas nonauthentic objects were doctored by deletion or addition of features (e.g., a camel with its hump removed, a hammer with two handles). The main manipulation of interest for both authentic and nonauthentic objects was the degree of typicality in the object's structure: typical items are composed of parts that have tended to co-occur across many different objects in the perceiver's experience. The ERP pattern revealed a significant typicality effect at 116 msec after stimulus onset. Both atypical authentic objects (e.g., a camel with its hump) and atypical nonauthentic objects (e.g., a jackal with a hump) elicited stronger brain activation than did objects with typical structure. A significant effect of authenticity was observed at 480 msec, with stronger activation for the nonauthentic objects. The factors of typicality and authenticity interacted at 160 and 330 msec. The most prominent source of the typicality effect was the bilateral occipitotemporal cortex, whereas the interaction and the authenticity effects were mainly observed in the more anterior bilateral temporal cortex. These findings support the hypothesis that within the first few hundred milliseconds after stimulus presentation onset, visual-form-related perceptual and conceptual processes represent distinct but interacting stages in object recognition.

[1]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[2]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  R. C. Oldfield THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .

[4]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[5]  A. Kertesz,et al.  Localization in transcortical sensory aphasia. , 1982, Archives of neurology.

[6]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Pictures and names: Making the connection , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  I. Biederman Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[8]  G. Humphreys,et al.  To See But Not To See: A Case Study Of Visual Agnosia , 1987 .

[9]  M. Alexander,et al.  Distributed anatomy of transcortical sensory aphasia. , 1989, Archives of neurology.

[10]  W. Levelt Speaking: From Intention to Articulation , 1990 .

[11]  John Hart,et al.  Delineation of single‐word semantic comprehension deficits in aphasia, with anatomical correlation , 1990, Annals of neurology.

[12]  M. Rugg,et al.  Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of pictures , 1990, Brain and Cognition.

[13]  J. Hodges,et al.  Semantic dementia. Progressive fluent aphasia with temporal lobe atrophy. , 1992 .

[14]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials Reflect Semantic Priming in an Object Decision Task , 1994, Brain and Cognition.

[15]  R. Hari,et al.  Dynamics of brain activation during picture naming , 1994, Nature.

[16]  J. S. Snowden Progressive language disorder due to lobar atrophy , 1995 .

[17]  G. Humphreys,et al.  An interactive activation approach to object processing: effects of structural similarity, name frequency, and task in normality and pathology. , 1995, Memory.

[18]  J R Hodges,et al.  Nonfluent progressive aphasia and semantic dementia: A comparative neuropsychological study , 1996, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[19]  A. Hillis,et al.  Cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying visual and semantic processing: implications from 'optic aphasia' , 1997 .

[20]  M. J. Riddoch,et al.  Visual object processing in optic aphasia: a case of semantic access agnosia , 1987 .

[21]  M. Kutas,et al.  Neurophysiological evidence for visual perceptual categorization of words and faces within 150 ms. , 1998, Psychophysiology.

[22]  Antje S. Meyer,et al.  An MEG Study of Picture Naming , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  O. Paulson,et al.  Perceptual differentiation and category effects in normal object recognition: a PET study. , 1999, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[24]  M. Kutas,et al.  Electrophysiological estimates of the time course of semantic and phonological encoding during implicit picture naming. , 2000, Psychophysiology.

[25]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  E. Halgren,et al.  Cognitive response profile of the human fusiform face area as determined by MEG. , 2000, Cerebral cortex.

[27]  Olaf Hauk,et al.  Electroencephalographic activity over temporal brain areas during phonological encoding in picture naming , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[28]  C. Price The anatomy of language: contributions from functional neuroimaging , 2000, Journal of anatomy.

[29]  J. Bullier Integrated model of visual processing , 2001, Brain Research Reviews.

[30]  F. Pulvermüller Brain reflections of words and their meaning , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[31]  Christian Gerlach,et al.  Structural similarity causes different category-effects depending on task characteristics , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[32]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Hierarchies, similarity, and interactivity in object recognition: “Category-specific” neuropsychological deficits , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[33]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Perceptual and semantic sources of category-specific effects: Event-related potentials during picture and word categorization , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[34]  Alex Martin,et al.  Semantic memory and the brain: structure and processes , 2001, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[35]  S. Thorpe,et al.  The Time Course of Visual Processing: From Early Perception to Decision-Making , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  Toby J. Lloyd-Jones,et al.  Effects of plane rotation, task, and complexity on recognition of familiar and chimeric objects , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[37]  Toby J. Lloyd-Jones,et al.  Outline shape is a mediator of object recognition that is particularly important for living things , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[38]  Anders M. Dale,et al.  Improved Localization of Cortical Activity By Combining EEG and MEG with MRI Cortical Surface Reconstruction , 2002 .

[39]  T. Rogers,et al.  Object recognition under semantic impairment: The effects of conceptual regularities on perceptual decisions , 2003 .

[40]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex , 2003, NeuroImage.

[41]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  The organization of conceptual knowledge: the evidence from category-specific semantic deficits , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[42]  K. Grill-Spector The neural basis of object perception , 2003, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[43]  Karalyn Patterson,et al.  What does the object decision task measure? Reflections on the basis of evidence from semantic dementia. , 2003, Neuropsychology.

[44]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: a neuropsychological and computational investigation. , 2004, Psychological review.

[45]  Olaf Hauk,et al.  Keep it simple: a case for using classical minimum norm estimation in the analysis of EEG and MEG data , 2004, NeuroImage.

[46]  Margitta Seeck,et al.  The speed of visual cognition. , 2004, Supplements to Clinical neurophysiology.

[47]  Timothy T. Rogers,et al.  NATURAL SELECTION: THE IMPACT OF SEMANTIC IMPAIRMENT ON LEXICAL AND OBJECT DECISION , 2004, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[48]  Brigitte Rockstroh,et al.  Grapheme Monitoring in Picture Naming: An Electrophysiological Study of Language Production , 2004, Brain Topography.

[49]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Visual Recognition As Soon as You Know It Is There, You Know What It Is , 2022 .

[50]  Karalyn Patterson,et al.  A Pet Study of Visual and Semantic Knowledge About Objects , 2005, Cortex.

[51]  Bruno A Olshausen,et al.  The earliest EEG signatures of object recognition in a cued-target task are postsensory. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[52]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  Brain mechanisms linking language and action , 2005, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[53]  Roy W Jones,et al.  Presemantic Cognition in Semantic Dementia: Six Deficits in Search of an Explanation , 2006 .

[54]  Phillip J. Holcomb,et al.  The neural organization of semantic memory: Electrophysiological activity suggests feature-based segregation , 2006, Biological Psychology.

[55]  Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al.  [Q:] When Would You Prefer a SOSSAGE to a SAUSAGE? [A:] At about 100 msec. ERP Correlates of Orthographic Typicality and Lexicality in Written Word Recognition , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[56]  R. Ilmoniemi,et al.  Interpreting magnetic fields of the brain: minimum norm estimates , 2006, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[57]  F. Pulvermüller,et al.  The time course of action and action-word comprehension in the human brain as revealed by neurophysiology , 2008, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[58]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  BORB: Birmingham Object Recognition Battery , 2017 .