Attentive and pre-attentive aspects of figural processing.

Here we use the steady-state visual evoked potential (SSVEP) to study attentive versus non-attentive processing of simple texture-defined shapes. By "tagging" the figure and background regions with different temporal frequencies, the method isolates response components associated with the figure region, the background region, and with non-linear spatio-temporal interactions between regions. Each of these response classes has a distinct scalp topography that is preserved under differing attentional task demands. In one task, attention was directed to discrimination of shape changes in the figure region. In the other task, a difficult letter discrimination was used to divert attentive processing resources away from the texture-defined form. Larger task-dependent effects were observed for figure responses and for the figure/background interaction than for the background responses. The figure region responses were delayed in occipital areas in the shape versus letter task conditions, while the region interactions were enhanced, especially in frontal areas. While a basic differentiation of figure from background processing occurred independent of task, attentive processing of elementary shapes recruited later occipital activity for figure processing and sustained non-linear figure/background interaction in frontal areas. Collectively, these results indicate that basic aspects of scene segmentation proceed pre-attentively, but that directed attention to the object shape engages a widely distributed network of brain areas including frontal and occipital regions.

[1]  D. Regan.  Human brain electrophysiology: Evoked potentials and evoked magnetic fields in science and medicine , 1989 .

[2]  Johannes Jacobus Fahrenfort,et al.  The spatiotemporal profile of cortical processing leading up to visual perception. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[3]  R. Malach,et al.  Object-related activity revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging in human occipital cortex. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex , 1962, The Journal of physiology.

[5]  M. Bar.  A Cortical Mechanism for Triggering Top-Down Facilitation in Visual Object Recognition , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  Gustavo Deco,et al.  Interactions between higher and lower visual areas improve shape selectivity of higher level neurons—Explaining crowding phenomena , 2007, Brain Research.

[7]  S. Hillyard,et al.  Selective attention to stimulus location modulates the steady-state visual evoked potential. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  Alex R. Wade,et al.  Figure-ground interaction in the human visual cortex. , 2008, Journal of vision.

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

[10]  Richard E. Greenblatt,et al.  Randomization-Based Hypothesis Testing from Event-Related Data , 2003, Brain Topography.

[11]  Pejman Sehatpour,et al.  A human intracranial study of long-range oscillatory coherence across a frontal–occipital–hippocampal brain network during visual object processing , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Cortical Regions Involved in Perceiving Object Shape , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  Coding of Border Ownership in Monkey Visual Cortex , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  Ko Sakai,et al.  Surrounding Suppression and Facilitation in the Determination of Border Ownership , 2006, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  Li Zhaoping,et al.  Border Ownership from Intracortical Interactions in Visual Area V2 , 2005, Neuron.

[16]  C Meinecke,et al.  Automaticity and attention: investigating automatic processing in texture segmentation with event-related brain potentials. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[17]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  The influence of inattention on the neural correlates of scene segmentation , 2006, Brain Research.

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

[19]  M Fahle,et al.  Feature-specific electrophysiological correlates of texture segregation , 2003, Vision Research.

[20]  Jon Driver,et al.  Edge-Assignment and Figure–Ground Segmentation in Short-Term Visual Matching , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  F. Qiu,et al.  Figure-ground mechanisms provide structure for selective attention , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  A neural model of figure-ground organization. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[23]  Matthias M. Müller,et al.  The time course of cortical facilitation during cued shifts of spatial attention , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[24]  S A Hillyard,et al.  Feature-selective attention enhances color signals in early visual areas of the human brain , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[26]  T. Kuyper,et al.  Interactions between higher plants and soil-dwelling organisms , 2013 .

[27]  M. Bach,et al.  Similar Electrophysiological Correlates of Texture Segregation Induced by Luminance, Orientation, Motion and Stereo , 1997, Vision Research.

[28]  G. R. Mangun,et al.  Interactions between attention and perceptual grouping in human visual cortex , 2006, Brain Research.

[29]  Francesca Pei,et al.  Neural correlates of object-based attention. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[30]  Alex R. Wade,et al.  Cue-Invariant Networks for Figure and Background Processing in Human Visual Cortex , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[31]  Mark M Schira,et al.  Differential contribution of early visual areas to the perceptual process of contour processing. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[32]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Texture segregation in the human visual cortex: A functional MRI study. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  Erich Schröger,et al.  Texture segmentation and visual search for pop-out targets. An ERP study. , 2004, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[34]  Michael Bach,et al.  Attention and visual texture segregation. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[35]  J. Victor,et al.  A new statistic for steady-state evoked potentials. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[36]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Sustained and transient components of focal visual attention , 1989, Vision Research.

[37]  Marcia Grabowecky,et al.  Attention induces synchronization-based response gain in steady-state visual evoked potentials , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[38]  Anil K. Seth,et al.  The power of human brain magnetoencephalographic signals can be modulated up or down by changes in an attentive visual task , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  Søren K. Andersen,et al.  Attentional bias of competitive interactions in neuronal networks of early visual processing in the human brain , 2008, NeuroImage.

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

[41]  G. Sperling,et al.  Attentional modulation of SSVEP power depends on the network tagged by the flicker frequency. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[42]  C. N. Boehler,et al.  Rapid recurrent processing gates awareness in primary visual cortex , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.