Integrated deep visual and semantic attractor neural networks predict fMRI pattern-information along the ventral object processing pathway

Recognising an object involves rapid visual processing and activation of semantic knowledge about the object, but how visual processing activates and interacts with semantic representations remains unclear. Cognitive neuroscience research has shown that while visual processing involves posterior regions along the ventral stream, object meaning involves more anterior regions, especially perirhinal cortex. Here we investigate visuo-semantic processing by combining a deep neural network model of vision with an attractor network model of semantics, such that visual information maps onto object meanings represented as activation patterns across features. In the combined model, concept activation is driven by visual input and co-occurrence of semantic features, consistent with neurocognitive accounts. We tested the model’s ability to explain fMRI data where participants named objects. Visual layers explained activation patterns in early visual cortex, whereas pattern-information in perirhinal cortex was best explained by later stages of the attractor network, when detailed semantic representations are activated. Posterior ventral temporal cortex was best explained by intermediate stages corresponding to initial semantic processing, when visual information has the greatest influence on the emerging semantic representation. These results provide proof of principle of how a mechanistic model of combined visuo-semantic processing can account for pattern-information in the ventral stream.

[1]  Jeroen Geertzen,et al.  Feature Statistics Modulate the Activation of Meaning During Spoken Word Processing , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  T. Rogers,et al.  Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain , 2007, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[3]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Comparison of deep neural networks to spatio-temporal cortical dynamics of human visual object recognition reveals hierarchical correspondence , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[4]  J. Rodd,et al.  Distinctiveness and correlation in conceptual structure: behavioral and computational studies. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Elizabeth Jefferies,et al.  Semantic Processing in the Anterior Temporal Lobes: A Meta-analysis of the Functional Neuroimaging Literature , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Deep Neural Networks predict Hierarchical Spatio-temporal Cortical Dynamics of Human Visual Object Recognition , 2016, ArXiv.

[7]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. , 1996, Psychological review.

[8]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Information-based functional brain mapping. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Alex Clarke,et al.  Dynamic information processing states revealed through neurocognitive models of object semantics , 2014, Language, cognition and neuroscience.

[10]  Elizabeth Jefferies,et al.  Fractionating the anterior temporal lobe: MVPA reveals differential responses to input and conceptual modality , 2017, NeuroImage.

[11]  N. Kriegeskorte,et al.  Author ' s personal copy Representational geometry : integrating cognition , computation , and the brain , 2013 .

[12]  Billi Randall,et al.  The perirhinal cortex and conceptual processing: Effects of feature-based statistics following damage to the anterior temporal lobes , 2015, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  J. Rodd,et al.  Anteromedial temporal cortex supports fine-grained differentiation among objects. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[14]  L. Tyler,et al.  Contrasting effects of feature-based statistics on the categorisation and basic-level identification of visual objects , 2012, Cognition.

[15]  Alfonso Caramazza,et al.  The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions? , 1990 .

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[17]  Joseph P. Levy,et al.  The distinctiveness of form and function in category structure: A connectionist model , 1997 .

[18]  Rob Fergus,et al.  Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networks , 2013, ECCV.

[19]  A. Ishai,et al.  Distributed and Overlapping Representations of Faces and Objects in Ventral Temporal Cortex , 2001, Science.

[20]  K. McRae,et al.  Shared Features Dominate Semantic Richness Effects for Concrete Concepts. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[21]  M. Masson A distributed memory model of semantic priming. , 1995 .

[22]  Alex Clarke,et al.  The Evolution of Meaning: Spatio-temporal Dynamics of Visual Object Recognition , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  L. Tyler,et al.  Object-Specific Semantic Coding in Human Perirhinal Cortex , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[24]  Uta Noppeney,et al.  Temporal lobe lesions and semantic impairment: a comparison of herpes simplex virus encephalitis and semantic dementia. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[25]  Paul Wright,et al.  Objects and Categories: Feature Statistics and Object Processing in the Ventral Stream , 2013, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[26]  Chris McNorgan,et al.  An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: simulating semantic priming , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[27]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Caffe: Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding , 2014, ACM Multimedia.

[28]  C. Price,et al.  Integrating Visual and Tactile Information in the Perirhinal Cortex , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[29]  Li Su,et al.  A Toolbox for Representational Similarity Analysis , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[30]  William W. Graves,et al.  Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[31]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[32]  L. Tyler,et al.  Predicting the Time Course of Individual Objects with MEG , 2014, Cerebral cortex.

[33]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  Jeroen Geertzen,et al.  The Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain (CSLB) concept property norms , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[35]  Timothy T. Rogers,et al.  Connecting functional brain imaging and Parallel Distributed Processing , 2015 .

[36]  George S. Cree,et al.  Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Nonparametric permutation tests for functional neuroimaging: A primer with examples , 2002, Human brain mapping.

[38]  Dumitru Erhan,et al.  Going deeper with convolutions , 2014, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[39]  Ken McRae,et al.  Category - Specific semantic deficits , 2008 .

[40]  Marcel A. J. van Gerven,et al.  Deep Neural Networks Reveal a Gradient in the Complexity of Neural Representations across the Ventral Stream , 2014, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[41]  Billi Randall,et al.  From perception to conception: how meaningful objects are processed over time. , 2013, Cerebral cortex.

[42]  Matthew A. Lambon Ralph,et al.  Neurocognitive insights on conceptual knowledge and its breakdown , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  D. Mirman,et al.  Dynamics of activation of semantically similar concepts during spoken word recognition , 2009, Memory & cognition.

[44]  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte,et al.  Deep neural networks: a new framework for modelling biological vision and brain information processing , 2015, bioRxiv.

[45]  L. Tyler,et al.  Representational Similarity Analysis Reveals Commonalities and Differences in the Semantic Processing of Words and Objects , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[46]  L. Tyler,et al.  Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  L. Tyler,et al.  Understanding What We See: How We Derive Meaning From Vision , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  P. Brockhoff,et al.  lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package) , 2014 .

[49]  K I Taylor,et al.  Conceptual structure: Towards an integrated neurocognitive account , 2011, Language and cognitive processes.

[50]  Daniel L. K. Yamins,et al.  Deep Neural Networks Rival the Representation of Primate IT Cortex for Core Visual Object Recognition , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[51]  Nikolaus Kriegeskorte,et al.  Deep Supervised, but Not Unsupervised, Models May Explain IT Cortical Representation , 2014, PLoS Comput. Biol..