Rats and humans differ in processing collinear visual features

Behavioral studies in humans and rats demonstrate that visual detection of a target stimulus is sensitive to surrounding spatial patterns. In both species, the detection of an oriented visual target is affected when the surrounding region contains flanking stimuli that are collinear to the target. In many studies, collinear flankers have been shown to improve performance in humans, both absolutely (compared to performance with no flankers) and relative to non-collinear flankers. More recently, collinear flankers have been shown to impair performance in rats both absolutely and relative to non-collinear flankers. However, these observations spanned different experimental paradigms. Past studies in humans have shown that the magnitude and even sign of flanker effects can depend critically on the details of stimulus and task design. Therefore either task differences or species could explain the opposite findings. Here we provide a direct comparison of behavioral data between species and show that these differences persist--collinear flankers improve performance in humans, and impair performance in rats--in spite of controls that match stimuli, experimental paradigm, and learning procedure. There is evidence that the contrasts of the target and the flankers could affect whether surround processing is suppressive or facilitatory. In a second experiment, we explored a range of contrast conditions in the rat, to determine if contrast could explain the lack of collinear facilitation. Using different pairs of target and flanker contrast, the rat's collinear impairment was confirmed to be robust across a range of contrast conditions. We conclude that processing of collinear features is indeed different between rats and humans. We speculate that the observed difference between rat and human is caused by the combined impact of differences in the statistics in natural retinal images, the representational capacity of neurons in visual cortex, and attention.

[1]  Y. Frégnac,et al.  The “silent” surround of V1 receptive fields: theory and experiments , 2003, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[2]  Philip Meier,et al.  Rat performance on visual detection task modeled with divisive normalization and adaptive decision thresholds. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[3]  L. Saksida,et al.  The touchscreen cognitive testing method for rodents: how to get the best out of your rat. , 2008, Learning & memory.

[4]  R. Williams,et al.  Structure of the cone photoreceptor mosaic in the retinal periphery of adult humans: analysis as a function of age, sex, and hemifield , 2000, Anatomy and Embryology.

[5]  David J. Field,et al.  Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images , 1996, Nature.

[6]  R Clay Reid,et al.  From Functional Architecture to Functional Connectomics , 2012, Neuron.

[7]  Davide Zoccolan,et al.  Multifeatural Shape Processing in Rats Engaged in Invariant Visual Object Recognition , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  C. Tyler,et al.  Lateral modulation of contrast discrimination: flanker orientation effects. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[9]  Edward M Callaway,et al.  Local connections to specific types of layer 6 neurons in the rat visual cortex. , 2006, Journal of neurophysiology.

[10]  Gerald H. Jacobs,et al.  Spatial contrast sensitivity in albino and pigmented rats , 1979, Vision Research.

[11]  Demetris K. Roumis,et al.  Functional Specialization of Mouse Higher Visual Cortical Areas , 2011, Neuron.

[12]  P. Strata,et al.  Saccadic Eye Movements and Gaze Holding in the Head‐Restrained Pigmented Rat , 1989, The European journal of neuroscience.

[13]  T. Branchek,et al.  Refractive state and visual acuity in the hooded rat , 1976, Vision Research.

[14]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Amplitude spectra of natural images. , 1992, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[15]  J. H. van Hateren,et al.  Modelling the Power Spectra of Natural Images: Statistics and Information , 1996, Vision Research.

[16]  Jon Driver,et al.  Lateral interactions between targets and flankers in low-level vision depend on attention to the flankers , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  D. Tolhurst,et al.  Amplitude spectra of natural images , 1992 .

[18]  W. M. Keck,et al.  Highly Selective Receptive Fields in Mouse Visual Cortex , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  Uri Polat,et al.  The relationship between the subjective and objective aspects of visual filling-in , 2007, Vision Research.

[20]  Peter Dayan,et al.  Cortical Surround Interactions and Perceptual Salience via Natural Scene Statistics , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[21]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Natural image statistics and neural representation. , 2001, Annual review of neuroscience.

[22]  Y. Chino,et al.  Receptive‐field properties of V1 and V2 neurons in mice and macaque monkeys , 2010, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[23]  Hans Strasburger,et al.  Assessing spatial vision — automated measurement of the contrast-sensitivity function in the hooded rat , 2000, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[24]  L. Lenchik Functional imaging , 2007, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[25]  R. Reid,et al.  Local Diversity and Fine-Scale Organization of Receptive Fields in Mouse Visual Cortex , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[26]  William Bialek,et al.  Statistics of Natural Images: Scaling in the Woods , 1993, NIPS.

[27]  D. Levi Crowding—An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review , 2008, Vision Research.

[28]  C. Niell,et al.  What can mice tell us about how vision works? , 2011, Trends in Neurosciences.

[29]  Y. Sauve,et al.  Automated quantification and topographical distribution of the whole population of S- and L-cones in adult albino and pigmented rats. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[30]  L. Saksida,et al.  Discrimination of computer-graphic stimuli by mice: a method for the behavioral characterization of transgenic and gene-knockout models. , 2001, Behavioral Neuroscience.

[31]  M. Carandini,et al.  Inhibition dominates sensory responses in awake cortex , 2012, Nature.

[32]  P. Dean,et al.  Visual pathways and acuity in hooded rats , 1981, Behavioural Brain Research.

[33]  K. S. Lashley,et al.  The Mechanism of Vision: I. A Method for Rapid Analysis of Pattern-Vision in the Rat , 1930 .

[34]  D. Levi,et al.  The effect of flankers on three tasks in central, peripheral, and amblyopic vision. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[35]  Aapo Hyvärinen,et al.  Natural Image Statistics - A Probabilistic Approach to Early Computational Vision , 2009, Computational Imaging and Vision.

[36]  U. Kamil,et al.  Functional imaging , 2001, 2001 Conference Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[37]  H. B. Barlow,et al.  Possible Principles Underlying the Transformations of Sensory Messages , 2012 .

[38]  Philip Meier,et al.  Collinear features impair visual detection by rats. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[39]  Sooyoung Chung,et al.  Functional imaging with cellular resolution reveals precise micro-architecture in visual cortex , 2005, Nature.

[40]  R F Hess,et al.  Relationship between facilitation at threshold and suprathreshold contour integration. , 1998, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[41]  C. Tyler,et al.  Excitatory and inhibitory interaction fields of flankers revealed by contrast-masking functions. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[42]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  Collinear facilitation is largely uncertainty reduction. , 2006, Journal of vision.

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