Evidence for similar early but not late representation of possible and impossible objects

The perceptual processes that mediate the ability to efficiently represent object 3D structure are still not fully understood. The current study was aimed to shed light on these processes by utilizing spatially possible and impossible objects that could not be created in real 3D space. Despite being perceived as exceptionally unusual, impossible objects still possess fundamental Gestalt attributes and valid local depth cues that may support their initial successful representation. Based on this notion and on recent findings from our lab, we hypothesized that the initial representation of impossible objects would involve common mechanisms to those mediating typical object perception while the perceived differences between possible and impossible objects would emerge later along the processing hierarchy. In Experiment 1, participants preformed same/different classifications of two markers superimposed on a display containing two objects (possible or impossible). Faster reaction times were observed for displays in which the markers were superimposed on the same object (“object-based benefit”). Importantly, this benefit was similar for possible and impossible objects, suggesting that the representations of the two object categories rely on similar perceptual organization processes. Yet, responses for impossible objects were slower compared to possible objects. Experiment 2 was designed to examine the origin of this effect. Participants classified the location of two markers while exposure duration was manipulated. A similar pattern of performance was found for possible and impossible objects for the short exposure duration, with differences in accuracy between these two types of objects emerging only for longer exposure durations. Overall, these findings provide evidence that the representation of object structure relies on a multi-level process and that object impossibility selectively impairs the rendering of fine-detailed description of object structure.

[1]  A. Yuille,et al.  Object perception as Bayesian inference. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[2]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Sensitivity to Object Impossibility in the Human Visual Cortex: Evidence from Functional Connectivity , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  L. Regolin,et al.  Spontaneous discrimination of possible and impossible objects by newly hatched chicks , 2011, Biology Letters.

[4]  Kenji Kawano,et al.  Global and fine information coded by single neurons in the temporal visual cortex , 1999, Nature.

[5]  D. Knill,et al.  The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation , 2004, Trends in Neurosciences.

[6]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Automatic, stimulus-driven attentional capture by objecthood , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  Thomas A Carlson,et al.  Perceptual benefits of objecthood. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[8]  M. Bar.  A Cortical Mechanism for Triggering Top-Down Facilitation in Visual Object Recognition , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  Wendy J Adams,et al.  Bayesian modeling of cue interaction: bistability in stereoscopic slant perception. , 2003, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[10]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing , 1970 .

[11]  S. Hochstein,et al.  View from the Top Hierarchies and Reverse Hierarchies in the Visual System , 2002, Neuron.

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

[13]  Barry D. Vaughan,et al.  Object-Based Visual Selection: Evidence From Perceptual Completion , 1998 .

[14]  J. Tzelgov,et al.  Is size perception based on monocular distance cues computed automatically? , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Ordinal configural cues combine with metric disparity in depth perception. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[16]  安藤 広志,et al.  20世紀の名著名論：David Marr:Vision:a Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2005 .

[17]  R. Zemel,et al.  Experience-Dependent Perceptual Grouping and Object-Based Attention , 2002 .

[18]  V. Schmidt,et al.  Visualization of high speed phenomena during the ignition transient of a LOX/GH2 coaxial injected spray , 2002 .

[19]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Confidence intervals in repeated-measures designs: The number of observations principle. , 2009, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[20]  Yaakov Stern,et al.  An event-related fMRI study of the neural networks underlying repetition suppression and reaction time priming in implicit visual memory , 2006, Brain Research.

[21]  D. Knill.  Learning Bayesian priors for depth perception. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[22]  R. Penrose,et al.  Impossible objects: a special type of visual illusion. , 1958, British journal of psychology.

[23]  Jeffrey S. Perry,et al.  Edge co-occurrence in natural images predicts contour grouping performance , 2001, Vision Research.

[24]  Fulvio Domini,et al.  Spatial integration in structure from motion , 2004, Vision Research.

[25]  I Kovács,et al.  A closed curve is much more than an incomplete one: effect of closure in figure-ground segmentation. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Fulvio Domini,et al.  Stereo and motion information are not independently processed by the visual system , 2006, Vision Research.

[27]  O. Reiser,et al.  Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[28]  Scott P. Johnson,et al.  Discrimination of Possible and Impossible Objects in Infancy , 2007, Psychological science.

[29]  E. Halgren,et al.  Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Evaluation of a Shape-Based Model of Human Face Discrimination Using fMRI and Behavioral Techniques , 2006, Neuron.

[31]  C Caudek,et al.  Distortions of depth-order relations and parallelism in structure from motion , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  Galia Avidan,et al.  The highs and lows of object impossibility: effects of spatial frequency on holistic processing of impossible objects , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[33]  Sarah Shomstein,et al.  Object-based attention: Shifting or uncertainty? , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[34]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Representation of possible and impossible objects in the human visual cortex: Evidence from fMRI adaptation , 2013, NeuroImage.

[35]  K. Koffka.  Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[36]  D. Kersten,et al.  Illusions, perception and Bayes , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[37]  Galia Avidan,et al.  Holistic processing of impossible objects: Evidence from Garner’s speeded-classification task , 2013, Vision Research.

[38]  J. Duncan.  Selective attention and the organization of visual information. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  Motion illusions as optimal percepts , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[40]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  Object-selective cortex exhibits performance-independent repetition suppression. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.