Psychophysical and electrophysiological evidence of independent facilitation by collinearity and similarity in texture grouping and segmentation

Gestalt factors of collinearity and similarity facilitate two fundamental perceptual tasks: grouping elements into figures and segmentation of figures from the ground. We have used a global-local paradigm to examine the psychophysical and neural correlates of these processes in humans: observers discriminated between orientations of either a three-Gabor group (grouping), or of a central Gabor within the group (segmentation). Groups were centered on a background of differently oriented Gabors. In both tasks, accuracy was increased by the collinearity (Experiment 1) and similarity (Experiment 2) of elements within the three-Gabor group. ERP correlates of facilitation differed across tasks. For segmentation, they were indexed by increased amplitude of negative ERP components, specific for processing textures, peaking at 75-250 and 150-250 ms, respectively. For grouping, collinearity and similarity had different effects. Collinearity produced a positive polarity deflection between 40 and 179 ms (i.e. the opposite to segmentation). This task-dependent switch in sign of polarity change, without corresponding changes in the stimulus or perception, reflects distinct neural mechanisms for collinear facilitation in grouping and segmentation. In contrast, similarity reduced positivity at 275 ms. Results show similar modulation of segmentation components via the distinct mechanism underlying collinearity and similarity, but distinct modulation of grouping components via collinearity and similarity.

[1]  Wu Li,et al.  Global contour saliency and local colinear interactions. , 2001, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  Neuronal responses to static texture patterns in area V1 of the alert macaque monkey. , 1992, Journal of neurophysiology.

[3]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Interactions between attention, context and learning in primary visual cortex , 2000, Vision Research.

[4]  Victor A. F. Lamme.  The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[5]  U. Polat,et al.  Lateral interactions between spatial channels: Suppression and facilitation revealed by lateral masking experiments , 1993, Vision Research.

[6]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[7]  S. Kastner,et al.  Neuronal Correlates of Pop-out in Cat Striate Cortex , 1997, Vision Research.

[8]  U. Polat,et al.  The architecture of perceptual spatial interactions , 1994, Vision Research.

[9]  Michael Bach,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of texture segregation in the human visual evoked potential , 1992, Vision Research.

[10]  V.A.F. Lamme,et al.  Beyond the classical receptive field: Contextual modulation of V1 responses , 2004 .

[11]  I. Ohzawa,et al.  Disinhibition Outside Receptive Fields in the Visual Cortex , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  U. Polat,et al.  Collinear stimuli regulate visual responses depending on cell's contrast threshold , 1998, Nature.

[13]  Matteo Carandini,et al.  Two Distinct Mechanisms of Suppression in Human Vision , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  Enrico Giora,et al.  Region- and edge-based configurational effects in texture segmentation , 2007, Vision Research.

[15]  J. Wagemans,et al.  Perceptual grouping in Gabor lattices: Proximity and alignment , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  D. Field,et al.  Integration of contours: new insights , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  D. Sagi,et al.  Excitatory-inhibitory network in the visual cortex: psychophysical evidence. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[19]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Contour Saliency in Primary Visual Cortex , 2006, Neuron.

[20]  U Polat,et al.  Facilitation and suppression of single striate-cell activity by spatially discrete pattern stimuli presented beyond the receptive field , 2001, Visual Neuroscience.

[21]  Max Wertheimer,et al.  Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt , .

[22]  M. Kubovy,et al.  Grouping by Proximity and Multistability in Dot Lattices: A Quantitative Gestalt Theory , 1995 .

[23]  Yulong Ding,et al.  Neural mechanisms of perceptual grouping in humans as revealed by high density event related potentials , 2002, Neuroscience Letters.

[24]  Gianluca Campana,et al.  Perceptual learning modulates electrophysiological and psychophysical response to visual texture segmentation in humans , 2004, Neuroscience Letters.

[25]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Improvement in visual sensitivity by changes in local context: Parallel studies in human observers and in V1 of alert monkeys , 1995, Neuron.

[26]  Shihui Han,et al.  Interactions between proximity and similarity grouping: an event-related brain potential study in humans , 2004, Neuroscience Letters.

[27]  G. R. Mangun,et al.  Electrophysiological correlates of lateral interactions in human visual cortex , 2004, Vision Research.

[28]  Clara Casco,et al.  A visual evoked potential correlate of global figure-ground segmentation , 1999, Vision Research.

[29]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  M. Kubovy,et al.  The whole is equal to the sum of its parts: a probabilistic model of grouping by proximity and similarity in regular patterns. , 2008, Psychological review.

[31]  H. Nothdurft.  Feature analysis and the role of similarity in preattentive vision , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  David J. Field,et al.  Contour integration by the human visual system: Evidence for a local “association field” , 1993, Vision Research.

[33]  Gianluca Campana,et al.  Attention modulates psychophysical and electrophysiological response to visual texture segmentation in humans , 2005, Vision Research.

[34]  U Polat,et al.  Collinear interactions and contour integration. , 2000, Spatial vision.

[35]  U. Polat.  Functional architecture of long-range perceptual interactions. , 1999, Spatial vision.

[36]  M. Kubovy,et al.  On the Lawfulness of Grouping by Proximity , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  A. Angelucci,et al.  Contribution of feedforward, lateral and feedback connections to the classical receptive field center and extra-classical receptive field surround of primate V1 neurons. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[38]  M. Wertheimer.  Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II , 1923 .

[39]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Topography of contextual modulations mediated by short-range interactions in primary visual cortex , 1999, Nature.

[40]  Yumiko Yoshimura,et al.  Suppressive effects of receptive field surround on neuronal activity in the cat primary visual cortex , 2002, Neuroscience Research.