Task and Spatial Frequency Modulations of Object Processing: An EEG Study

Visual object processing may follow a coarse-to-fine sequence imposed by fast processing of low spatial frequencies (LSF) and slow processing of high spatial frequencies (HSF). Objects can be categorized at varying levels of specificity: the superordinate (e.g. animal), the basic (e.g. dog), or the subordinate (e.g. Border Collie). We tested whether superordinate and more specific categorization depend on different spatial frequency ranges, and whether any such dependencies might be revealed by or influence signals recorded using EEG. We used event-related potentials (ERPs) and time-frequency (TF) analysis to examine the time course of object processing while participants performed either a grammatical gender-classification task (which generally forces basic-level categorization) or a living/non-living judgement (superordinate categorization) on everyday, real-life objects. Objects were filtered to contain only HSF or LSF. We found a greater positivity and greater negativity for HSF than for LSF pictures in the P1 and N1 respectively, but no effects of task on either component. A later, fronto-central negativity (N350) was more negative in the gender-classification task than the superordinate categorization task, which may indicate that this component relates to semantic or syntactic processing. We found no significant effects of task or spatial frequency on evoked or total gamma band responses. Our results demonstrate early differences in processing of HSF and LSF content that were not modulated by categorization task, with later responses reflecting such higher-level cognitive factors.

[1]  P. Reuter-Lorenz,et al.  Global Versus Local Processing in the Absence of Low Spatial Frequencies , 1990, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[2]  I. Nelken,et al.  Transient Induced Gamma-Band Response in EEG as a Manifestation of Miniature Saccades , 2008, Neuron.

[3]  Matthias M. Müller,et al.  Effects of picture repetition on induced gamma band responses, evoked potentials, and phase synchrony in the human EEG. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[4]  H. Jasper,et al.  The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[5]  H. Barlow Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[6]  J. Hegdé Time course of visual perception: Coarse-to-fine processing and beyond , 2008, Progress in Neurobiology.

[7]  A. Oliva,et al.  Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: when categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations , 1999, Cognition.

[8]  S. Thorpe,et al.  The Time Course of Visual Processing: From Early Perception to Decision-Making , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[9]  Michael L. Mack,et al.  Time course of visual object categorization: Fastest does not necessarily mean first , 2009, Vision Research.

[10]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Pictures and names: Making the connection , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  Jasna Martinovic,et al.  Coding of Visual Object Features and Feature Conjunctions in the Human Brain , 2008, PloS one.

[12]  Rufin VanRullen,et al.  The power of the feed-forward sweep , 2008, Advances in cognitive psychology.

[13]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex , 2003, NeuroImage.

[14]  Arnaud Delorme,et al.  EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[15]  C. A. Grimbergen,et al.  HIGH QUALITY RECORDING OF BIOELECTRIC EVENTS . I : INTERFERENCE REDUCTION , THEORY AND PRACTICE , 2009 .

[16]  Thom Baguley,et al.  Serious stats: a guide to advanced statistics for the behavioral sciences , 2012 .

[17]  J. Bullier Integrated model of visual processing , 2001, Brain Research Reviews.

[18]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  From Coarse to Fine? Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Cortical Face Processing , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  A. Oliva,et al.  From Blobs to Boundary Edges: Evidence for Time- and Spatial-Scale-Dependent Scene Recognition , 1994 .

[21]  James J. DiCarlo,et al.  How Does the Brain Solve Visual Object Recognition? , 2012, Neuron.

[22]  Olivier R. Joubert,et al.  The Time-Course of Visual Categorizations: You Spot the Animal Faster than the Bird , 2009, PloS one.

[23]  I. Gauthier,et al.  Spatial scale contribution to early visual differences between face and object processing. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[24]  Jasna Martinovic,et al.  High frequency oscillations as a correlate of visual perception. , 2011, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[25]  Paul Portner,et al.  Syntax, concepts, and logic in the temporal dynamics of language comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Visual Recognition As Soon as You Know It Is There, You Know What It Is , 2022 .

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

[28]  Haline E. Schendan,et al.  Object-sensitive activity reflects earlier perceptual and later cognitive processing of visual objects between 95 and 500ms , 2010, Brain Research.

[29]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  Robert Oostenveld,et al.  FieldTrip: Open Source Software for Advanced Analysis of MEG, EEG, and Invasive Electrophysiological Data , 2010, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[31]  Yannick Marchand,et al.  ERP assessment of functional status in the temporal lobe: examining spatiotemporal correlates of object recognition. , 2007, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[32]  P. Schyns,et al.  Usage of spatial scales for the categorization of faces, objects, and scenes , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[33]  Shlomit Yuval-Greenberg,et al.  Saccadic spike potentials in gamma-band EEG: Characterization, detection and suppression , 2010, NeuroImage.

[34]  Jasna Martinovic,et al.  Induced Gamma Band Responses Predict Recognition Delays during Object Identification , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[35]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[37]  B. Rossion,et al.  Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's Object Pictorial Set: The Role of Surface Detail in Basic-Level Object Recognition , 2004, Perception.

[38]  M. Kiefer,et al.  Cognitive Neuroscience: Tracking the time course of object categorization using event-related potentials , 1999 .

[39]  Jasna Martinovic,et al.  Priming of object categorization within and across levels of specificity , 2009 .

[40]  P. Mitra,et al.  Analysis of dynamic brain imaging data. , 1998, Biophysical journal.

[41]  A. Oliva,et al.  Coarse Blobs or Fine Edges? Evidence That Information Diagnosticity Changes the Perception of Complex Visual Stimuli , 1997, Cognitive Psychology.

[42]  E. Halgren,et al.  Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[43]  D. Navon What does a compound letter tell the psychologist's mind? , 2003, Acta psychologica.

[44]  D R Badcock,et al.  Low-Frequency Filtering and the Processing of Local—Global Stimuli , 1990, Perception.

[45]  J Wilson,et al.  Spatial Frequency and Selective Attention to Local and Global Information , 1987, Perception.

[46]  Elana Zion-Golumbic,et al.  Electrophysiological neural mechanisms for detection, configural analysis and recognition of faces , 2007, NeuroImage.

[47]  C A Grimbergen,et al.  High-quality recording of bioelectric events , 1991, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[48]  Margot J. Taylor,et al.  N170 or N1? Spatiotemporal differences between object and face processing using ERPs. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.

[49]  Bradford Z. Mahon,et al.  A bimodal tuning curve for spatial frequency across left and right human orbital frontal cortex during object recognition. , 2014, Cerebral cortex.

[50]  M. Bar,et al.  Magnocellular Projections as the Trigger of Top-Down Facilitation in Recognition , 2007, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[51]  T. Rogers,et al.  Object categorization: reversals and explanations of the basic-level advantage. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[52]  Shlomo Bentin,et al.  Stimulus type, level of categorization, and spatial-frequencies utilization: implications for perceptual categorization hierarchies. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[53]  Emmanuel M Pothos,et al.  “Object Categorization: Reversals and Explanations of the Basic-Level Advantage” (Rogers & Patterson, 2007): A simplicity account , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[54]  C. Stern,et al.  Where vision meets memory: prefrontal-posterior networks for visual object constancy during categorization and recognition. , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[55]  Bruno Rossion,et al.  ERP evidence for task modulations on face perceptual processing at different spatial scales , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[56]  Stefan Debener,et al.  Size matters: effects of stimulus size, duration and eccentricity on the visual gamma-band response , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[57]  Charles A. Collin,et al.  Subordinate-level categorization relies on high spatial frequencies to a greater degree than basic-level categorization , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[58]  Paul T. Sowden,et al.  Channel surfing in the visual brain , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[59]  R. Bakeman Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[60]  J. Algina,et al.  Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. , 2003, Psychological methods.

[61]  R. B. Reilly,et al.  FASTER: Fully Automated Statistical Thresholding for EEG artifact Rejection , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[62]  Nelson J. Trujillo-Barreto,et al.  Induced gamma band responses in human EEG after the control of miniature saccadic artifacts , 2011, NeuroImage.

[63]  Christoph M. Michel,et al.  The Neural Substrates and Timing of Top–Down Processes during Coarse-to-Fine Categorization of Visual Scenes: A Combined fMRI and ERP Study , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.