Visual synchrony affects binding and segmentation in perception

The visual system analyses information by decomposing complex objects into simple components (visual features) that are widely distributed across the cortex,. When several objects are present simultaneously in the visual field, a mechanism is required to group (bind) together visual features that belong to each object and to separate (segment) them from features of other objects. An attractive scheme for binding visual features into a coherent percept consists of synchronizing the activity of their neural representations. If synchrony is important in binding, one would expect that binding and segmentation are facilitated by visual displays that are temporally manipulated to induce stimulus-dependent synchrony. Here we show that visual grouping is indeed facilitated when elements of one percept are presented at the same time as each other and are temporally separated (on a scale below the integration time of the visual system) from elements of another percept or from background elements. Our results indicate that binding is due to a global mechanism of grouping caused by synchronous neural activation, and not to a local mechanism of motion computation.

[1]  Mike Mesterton-Gibbons.  On the iterated prisoner's dilemma in a finite population , 1992 .

[2]  T A Busey,et al.  Providing a sensory basis for models of visual information acquisition , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  T. Wiesel,et al.  Relationships between horizontal interactions and functional architecture in cat striate cortex as revealed by cross-correlation analysis , 1986, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[4]  Jennifer J. Halpern.  Elements of a Script for Friendship in Transactions , 1997 .

[5]  G. Roberts,et al.  The evolution of generosity and choosiness in cooperative exchanges. , 1998, Journal of theoretical biology.

[6]  T. Oyama,et al.  Perceptual grouping between successively presented stimuli and its relation to visual simultaneity and masking , 1978, Psychological research.

[7]  E. G. Jones.  Cerebral Cortex , 1987, Cerebral Cortex.

[8]  Robert Sekuler,et al.  Detection and identification of moving targets , 1983, Vision Research.

[9]  J. B. Levitt,et al.  Comparison of intrinsic connectivity in different areas of macaque monkey cerebral cortex. , 1993, Cerebral cortex.

[10]  D. Sagi,et al.  Perceptual grouping by similarity and proximity: Experimental results can be predicted by intensity autocorrelations , 1995, Vision Research.

[11]  J R Peck.  Friendship and the evolution of co-operation. , 1993, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  C. Malsburg.  Binding in models of perception and brain function , 1995, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[13]  J. Movshon,et al.  Cortical oscillatory responses do not affect visual segmentation , 1996, Vision Research.

[14]  W Singer,et al.  Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[15]  P. Milner.  A model for visual shape recognition. , 1974, Psychological review.

[16]  UTE LEONARDS,et al.  The Influence of Temporal Phase Differences on Texture Segmentation , 1996, Vision Research.

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

[18]  S W Keele,et al.  Tests of a temporal theory of attentional binding. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Marcus Frean.  The prisoner’s dilemma without synchrony , 1994, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  W. Singer,et al.  Neuronal assemblies: necessity, signature and detectability , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[21]  R. Gregory,et al.  Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing , 1969 .

[22]  W. Singer,et al.  Reduced Synchronization in the Visual Cortex of Cats with Strabismic Amblyopia , 1994, The European journal of neuroscience.

[23]  Robert M. Seyfarth,et al.  Grooming, alliances and reciprocal altruism in vervet monkeys , 1984, Nature.

[24]  R. Gregory.  Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing , 1966 .

[25]  J. Beck.  Organization and representation in perception , 1982 .

[26]  D. Stephens,et al.  Testing models of non-kin cooperation: mutualism and the Prisoner’s Dilemma , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[27]  F. D. Waal.  The Chimpanzee's service economy: Food for grooming , 1997 .

[28]  R. Connor.  Impala allogrooming and the parcelling model of reciprocity , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[29]  M Fahle,et al.  Figure–ground discrimination from temporal information , 1993, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  C. Koch,et al.  Spatial displacement, but not temporal asynchrony, destroys figural binding , 1995, Vision Research.

[31]  Christoph von der Malsburg,et al.  The Correlation Theory of Brain Function , 1994 .

[32]  C. Koch,et al.  Towards a neurobiological theory of consciousness , 1990 .

[33]  G. Roberts.  Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  M. Nowak,et al.  The Alternating Prisoner's Dilemma , 1994 .

[35]  Eytan Domany,et al.  Models of Neural Networks I , 1991 .

[36]  C. Packer,et al.  Complex cooperative strategies in group-territorial African lions , 1995, Science.

[37]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Iconic memory and visible persistence , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[38]  W. Singer,et al.  Two segmentation mechanisms with differential sensitivity for colour and luminance contrast , 1998, Vision Research.

[39]  Keiji Tanaka,et al.  Coding visual images of objects in the inferotemporal cortex of the macaque monkey. , 1991, Journal of neurophysiology.