Recognizing objects regardless of viewing angles enlarges the difference across the ERP component N1 amplitudes evoked by the objects

Even if viewed from different angles, one can identify an object from similar distractors after learning. To investigate the changes in neuronal activity accompanying to the object recognition learning, human subjects were asked to train themselves with novel objects in a task, in which the images of an object had to be discriminated from images of other objects regardless of the viewpoint. EEGs were recorded at the beginning of the task and after extensive training. Comparison of the ERP component - N1, the first early negative peak at posterior electrodes, showed a significant increase in the variation of N1 amplitude over objects during the learning process. The variation across views decreased. It suggests, at least at the level of N1, that the neuronal network responding to different views of the same object share largely after training, whereas before training it was based on the stimulus image similarity.

[1]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[2]  N. Logothetis,et al.  View-dependent object recognition by monkeys , 1994, Current Biology.

[3]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Functional architecture in monkey inferotemporal cortex revealed by in vivo optical imaging , 1998, Neuroscience Research.

[4]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Prior experience of rotation is not required for recognizing objects seen from different angles , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[5]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Effects of shape-discrimination training on the selectivity of inferotemporal cells in adult monkeys. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[6]  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.

[7]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Object recognition in man, monkey, and machine , 1999 .

[8]  M. Tarr,et al.  The N170 occipito‐temporal component is delayed and enhanced to inverted faces but not to inverted objects: an electrophysiological account of face‐specific processes in the human brain , 2000, Neuroreport.

[9]  Gang Wang,et al.  Event-related potential component associated with the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 2005, Neuroreport.

[10]  G. Humphrey,et al.  Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[11]  Bruno A Olshausen,et al.  Timecourse of neural signatures of object recognition. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[12]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[14]  M. Tarr Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  T. Allison,et al.  Electrophysiological Studies of Face Perception in Humans , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  I. Rock,et al.  A case of viewer-centered object perception , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Optical Imaging of Functional Organization in the Monkey Inferotemporal Cortex , 1996, Science.