Neural encoding of relative position.

Late ventral visual areas generally consist of cells having a significant degree of translation invariance. Such a "bag of features" representation is useful for the recognition of individual objects; however, it seems unable to explain our ability to parse a scene into multiple objects and to understand their spatial relationships. We review several schemes (e.g., global features and serial attention) for how to reconcile bag-of-features representation with our ability to understand relationships; we review structural description theories that, in contrast, suggest that a neural binding mechanism assigns the features of each object in a scene to a separate "slot" to which relational information for that object is explicitly bound. Four functional magnetic resonance imaging-adaptation experiments assessed how ventral stream regions respond to rearrangements of two objects in a minimal scene that depict scene translations and relational changes. Changes of relative position (e.g., elephant above bus changing to bus above elephant) produced larger releases of adaptation in the anterior lateral occipital complex (LOC) than physically equivalent translations, providing evidence that spatial relations are explicitly encoded in the anterior LOC in agreement with structural description theories.

[1]  HighWire Press Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London , 1781, The London Medical Journal.

[2]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Explorations in Cognition , 1975 .

[3]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  The psychology of computer vision , 1976, Pattern Recognit..

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

[5]  J. Fodor,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis , 1988, Cognition.

[6]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[7]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  A neurobiological model of visual attention and invariant pattern recognition based on dynamic routing of information , 1993, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[9]  G. Logan Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  M. Tovée,et al.  Processing speed in the cerebral cortex and the neurophysiology of visual masking , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  ‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain , 1994, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[12]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Object and spatial visual working memory activate separate neural systems in human cortex. , 1996, Cerebral cortex.

[13]  J. Duncan,et al.  The Slow Time-Course of Visual Attention , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  S. Thorpe,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[15]  Bartlett W. Mel SEEMORE: Combining Color, Shape, and Texture Histogramming in a Neurally Inspired Approach to Visual Object Recognition , 1997, Neural Computation.

[16]  Edward K. Vogel,et al.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions , 1997, Nature.

[17]  G. Glover,et al.  Retinotopic organization in human visual cortex and the spatial precision of functional MRI. , 1997, Cerebral cortex.

[18]  R. Desimone,et al.  Responses of Neurons in Inferior Temporal Cortex during Memory- Guided Visual Search , 1998 .

[19]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature binding, attention and object perception. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[20]  T. Poggio,et al.  Are Cortical Models Really Bound by the “Binding Problem”? , 1999, Neuron.

[21]  T. Poggio,et al.  Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  C. von der Malsburg The what and why of binding: the modeler's perspective. , 1999, Neuron.

[23]  G. Orban,et al.  Shape interactions in macaque inferior temporal neurons. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  S. Edelman,et al.  Differential Processing of Objects under Various Viewing Conditions in the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 1999, Neuron.

[25]  M. Chun,et al.  Organization of visual short-term memory. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  Nathan Intrator,et al.  (coarse Coding of Shape Fragments) (retinotopy) Representation of Structure , 2000 .

[27]  S Edelman,et al.  (Coarse coding of shape fragments) + (retinotopy) approximately = representation of structure. , 2000, Spatial vision.

[28]  M. Bar,et al.  Cortical Mechanisms Specific to Explicit Visual Object Recognition , 2001, Neuron.

[29]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

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

[31]  Z Kourtzi,et al.  Representation of Perceived Object Shape by the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 2001, Science.

[32]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The lateral occipital complex and its role in object recognition , 2001, Vision Research.

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

[34]  T. Poggio,et al.  How Visual Cortex Recognizes Objects: The Tale of the Standard Model , 2002 .

[35]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[36]  Michel Vidal-Naquet,et al.  Visual features of intermediate complexity and their use in classification , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[37]  M. Goodale,et al.  Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object-directed grasping: an fMRI study. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[38]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Attentional pursuit is faster than attentional saccade. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[39]  D. Somers,et al.  Multiple Spotlights of Attentional Selection in Human Visual Cortex , 2004, Neuron.

[40]  Kunihiko Fukushima,et al.  Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position , 1980, Biological Cybernetics.

[41]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[42]  L. Chalupa,et al.  The visual neurosciences , 2004 .

[43]  James J DiCarlo,et al.  Multiple Object Response Normalization in Monkey Inferotemporal Cortex , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[44]  Thomas D. Albright,et al.  Neural Correlates of Knowledge: Stable Representation of Stimulus Associations across Variations in Behavioral Performance , 2005, Neuron.

[45]  E. Rolls,et al.  Scene perception: inferior temporal cortex neurons encode the positions of different objects in the scene , 2005, The European journal of neuroscience.

[46]  Thomas Serre,et al.  A Theory of Object Recognition: Computations and Circuits in the Feedforward Path of the Ventral Stream in Primate Visual Cortex , 2005 .

[47]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  Repetition and the brain: neural models of stimulus-specific effects , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  I. Biederman,et al.  Neural evidence for intermediate representations in object recognition , 2006, Vision Research.

[49]  M. Chun,et al.  Dissociable neural mechanisms supporting visual short-term memory for objects , 2006, Nature.

[50]  Manabu Tanifuji,et al.  Representation of the spatial relationship among object parts by neurons in macaque inferotemporal cortex. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[51]  Edmund T. Rolls,et al.  Invariant visual object recognition: A model, with lighting invariance , 2006, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[52]  Jonathan S. Cant,et al.  Cerebral Cortex Advance Access published April 28, 2006 Attention to Form or Surface Properties Modulates Different Regions of Human , 2022 .

[53]  David D. Cox,et al.  Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.11 No.8 Untangling invariant object recognition , 2022 .

[54]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  The different stages of visual recognition need different attentional binding strategies , 2008, Brain Research.

[55]  Jonathan S. Cant,et al.  fMR-adaptation reveals separate processing regions for the perception of form and texture in the human ventral stream , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.

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

[57]  Kenneth J. Hayworth Explicit encoding of spatial relations in the human visual system: Evidence from functional neuroimaging , 2009 .

[58]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Decoding the Representation of Multiple Simultaneous Objects in Human Occipitotemporal Cortex , 2009, Current Biology.

[59]  M. Chun,et al.  Selecting and perceiving multiple visual objects , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[60]  Don Dedrick,et al.  Computation, Cognition, and Pylyshyn , 2009 .

[61]  J. Bishop,et al.  Things and Places : How the Mind Connects with the World , 2010 .

[62]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Where do objects become scenes? , 2010, Cerebral Cortex.

[63]  Jiye G. Kim,et al.  Where do objects become scenes? , 2011, Cerebral cortex.