Feedforward and feedback processes in vision

Hierarchical processing is key to understanding vision. The visual system consists of hierarchically organized distinct anatomical areas functionally specialized for processing different aspects of a visual object (Felleman and Van Essen, 1991). These visual areas are interconnected through ascending feedforward projections, descending feedback projections, and projections from neural structures at the same hierarchical level (Lamme et al., 1998). Even though accumulating evidence suggests that these three projections play fundamentally different roles in perception, their distinct functional roles in visual processing are still subject to debate (Lamme and Roelfsema, 2000). The focus of this Research Topic was the roles of feedforward and feedback projections in vision. In fact, our motivation to edit this Research Topic was threefold: (i) to provide current views on the functional roles of feedforward and feedback projections for the perception of specific visual features, (ii) to invite recent views on how these functional roles contribute to the distinct modes of visual processing, (iii) to provide recent methodological views to identify distinct functional roles of feedforward and feedback projections and corresponding neural signatures. As summarized below, these aims are largely achieved thanks to fourteen contributions to this issue.

[1]  Tirin Moore,et al.  Combined contributions of feedforward and feedback inputs to bottom-up attention , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[2]  Lars Strother,et al.  Inter-element orientation and distance influence the duration of persistent contour integration , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[3]  Lars Muckli,et al.  Contributions of cortical feedback to sensory processing in primary visual cortex , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[4]  D. V. Essen,et al.  Neural mechanisms of form and motion processing in the primate visual system , 1994, Neuron.

[5]  David N. Silverstein,et al.  A computational investigation of feedforward and feedback processing in metacontrast backward masking , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[6]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  Feedforward, horizontal, and feedback processing in the visual cortex , 1998, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[7]  Martin V. Butz,et al.  Adaptive learning in a compartmental model of visual cortex—how feedback enables stable category learning and refinement , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[8]  Andreas Wutz,et al.  The temporal window of individuation limits visual capacity , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[9]  Oliver W. Layton,et al.  Neural dynamics of feedforward and feedback processing in figure-ground segregation , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[10]  Vincent Di Lollo Reentrant processing mediates object substitution masking: comment on Põder (2013) , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[11]  D. J. Felleman,et al.  Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. , 1991, Cerebral cortex.

[12]  Ronald A. Rensink Limits to the usability of iconic memory , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[13]  Talis Bachmann,et al.  A hidden ambiguity of the term “feedback” in its use as an explanatory mechanism for psychophysical visual phenomena , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[14]  Hans Supèr,et al.  A feed-forward spiking model of shape-coding by IT cells , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[15]  V. Lamme,et al.  The distinct modes of vision offered by feedforward and recurrent processing , 2000, Trends in Neurosciences.

[16]  Endel Põder The changing picture of object substitution masking: reply to Di Lollo (2014) , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[17]  Michael H. Herzog,et al.  Visual crowding illustrates the inadequacy of local vs. global and feedforward vs. feedback distinctions in modeling visual perception , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[18]  Karun Thankachan,et al.  Adaptive Learning , 2011 .

[19]  David J. Jilk,et al.  Early recurrent feedback facilitates visual object recognition under challenging conditions , 2014, Front. Psychol..