The Lateral Occipital Complex shows no net response to object familiarity

In 1995, Malach et al. discovered an area whose fMRI BOLD response was greater when viewing intact, familiar objects than when viewing their scrambled versions (resembling texture). Since then hundreds of studies have explored this late visual region termed the Lateral Occipital Complex (LOC), which is now known to be critical for shape perception (James, Culham, Humphrey, Milner, & Goodale, 2003). Malach et al. (1995) discounted a role of familiarity by showing that “abstract” Henry Moore sculptures, unfamiliar to the subjects, also activated this region. This characterization of LOC as a region that responds to shape independently of familiarity has been accepted but never tested with control of the same low-level features. We assessed LOC's response to objects that had identical parts in two different arrangements, one familiar and the other novel. Malach was correct: There is no net effect of familiarity in LOC. However, a multivoxel correlation analysis showed that LOC does distinguish familiar from novel objects.

[1]  Fei-Fei Li,et al.  Basic Level Category Structure Emerges Gradually across Human Ventral Visual Cortex , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  Qinglin Zhang,et al.  Neural Correlates of the Perception for Novel Objects , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Cortical representation of medial axis structure. , 2013, Cerebral cortex.

[4]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Predicting the psychophysical similarity of faces and non-face complex shapes by image-based measures , 2012, Vision Research.

[5]  I. Biederman,et al.  Neural encoding of relative position. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  Irving Biederman,et al.  Adaptation to objects in the lateral occipital complex (LOC): Shape or semantics? , 2009, Vision Research.

[7]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Repetition suppression in occipital–temporal visual areas is modulated by physical rather than semantic features of objects , 2008, NeuroImage.

[8]  I. Biederman,et al.  Neural evidence for intermediate representations in object recognition , 2006, Vision Research.

[9]  M. Goodale,et al.  Ventral occipital lesions impair object recognition but not object-directed grasping: an fMRI study. , 2003, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[10]  I. Biederman,et al.  Shape Tuning in Macaque Inferior Temporal Cortex , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Michael Brady,et al.  Improved Optimization for the Robust and Accurate Linear Registration and Motion Correction of Brain Images , 2002, NeuroImage.

[12]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Temporal Autocorrelation in Univariate Linear Modeling of FMRI Data , 2001, NeuroImage.

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

[14]  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.

[15]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  Distortion Invariant Object Recognition in the Dynamic Link Architecture , 1993, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[16]  I. Biederman,et al.  Priming contour-deleted images: Evidence for intermediate representations in visual object recognition , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  M. C. Smith,et al.  Tracing the time course of picture--word processing. , 1980, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  D. V. van Essen,et al.  A Population-Average, Landmark- and Surface-based (PALS) atlas of human cerebral cortex. , 2005, NeuroImage.

[19]  J. Mazziotta,et al.  A Locus in Human Extrastriate Cortex for Visual Shape Analysis , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[20]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[21]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.