Dynamic Norm-based Encoding for Unfamiliar Shapes in Human Visual Cortex

Previous studies have argued that faces and other objects are encoded in terms of their deviation from a class prototype or norm. This prototype is associated with a smaller neural population response compared with nonprototype objects. However, it is still unclear (1) whether a norm-based representation can emerge for unfamiliar or novel object classes through visual experience at the time scale of an experiment and (2) whether the results from previous studies are caused by the prototypicality of a stimulus, by the physical properties of individual stimuli independent from the stimulus distribution, and/or by the trial-to-trial adaptation. Here we show with a combined behavioral and event-related fMRI study in humans that a short amount of visual experience with exemplars from novel object classes determines which stimulus is represented as the norm. Prototypicality effects were observed at the behavioral level by behavioral asymmetries during a stimulus comparison task. The fMRI data revealed that class exemplars closest to the prototypes—the perceived average of each class—were associated with a smaller response in the anterior part of the visual object-selective cortex compared with other class exemplars. By dissociating between the physical characteristics and the prototypicality status of the stimuli and by controlling for trial-to-trial adaptation, we can firmly conclude for the first time that high-level visual areas represent the identity of exemplars using a dynamic, norm-based encoding principle.

[1]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Asymmetries in Stimulus Comparisons by Monkey and Man , 2003, Current Biology.

[2]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  The representation of subordinate shape similarity in human occipitotemporal cortex. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[3]  G. Rhodes The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  F. Moore Cognitive development and the acquisition of language , 1973 .

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

[6]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Identification and ratings of caricatures: Implications for mental representations of faces , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[8]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value , 2002 .

[9]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  fMR-adaptation: a tool for studying the functional properties of human cortical neurons. , 2001, Acta psychologica.

[10]  E. Rosch ON THE INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF PERCEPTUAL AND SEMANTIC CATEGORIES1 , 1973 .

[11]  G. Rhodes,et al.  The dynamics of visual adaptation to faces. , 2005, Proceedings. Biological sciences.

[12]  H. Wilson,et al.  fMRI evidence for the neural representation of faces , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[13]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  The effect of category learning on the representation of shape: dimensions can be biased but not differentiated. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  Relating retinotopic and object-selective responses in human lateral occipital cortex. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  Doris Y. Tsao,et al.  What's so special about the average face? , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[16]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain , 2002, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[17]  M. Giese,et al.  Norm-based face encoding by single neurons in the monkey inferotemporal cortex , 2006, Nature.

[18]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Neural responses to visual scenes reveals inconsistencies between fMRI adaptation and multivoxel pattern analysis , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  Kalanit Grill-Spector,et al.  Semantic versus perceptual priming in fusiform cortex , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Prototypes in the Mist: The Early Epochs of Category Learning , 1998 .

[21]  M. Posner,et al.  On the genesis of abstract ideas. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Visual attention: Insights from brain imaging , 2000, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[23]  N. Gale,et al.  Exploring the anchor-point hypothesis of spatial cognition , 1987 .

[24]  R. Nosofsky Stimulus bias, asymmetric similarity, and classification , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  S. Edelman,et al.  Differential Processing of Objects under Various Viewing Conditions in the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 1999, Neuron.

[26]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Visual object recognition. , 1996, Annual review of neuroscience.

[27]  David Alexander Kahn,et al.  Confounding of norm-based and adaptation effects in brain responses , 2012, NeuroImage.

[28]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Multivariate Patterns in Object-Selective Cortex Dissociate Perceptual and Physical Shape Similarity , 2008, PLoS biology.

[29]  H. Blum Biological shape and visual science (part I) , 1973 .

[30]  Karl J. Friston Introduction Experimental design and Statistical Parametric Mapping , 2003 .

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

[32]  P. Hancock,et al.  The organization of conspecific face space in nonhuman primates , 2012, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[33]  R. Vogels,et al.  Inferotemporal neurons represent low-dimensional configurations of parameterized shapes , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[34]  K. Grill-Spector,et al.  The human visual cortex. , 2004, Annual review of neuroscience.

[35]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Perceived Shape Similarity among Unfamiliar Objects and the Organization of the Human Object Vision Pathway , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[37]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  A shape-contrast effect for briefly presented stimuli. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  A. O'Toole,et al.  Prototype-referenced shape encoding revealed by high-level aftereffects , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[39]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Caricature Effects, Distinctiveness, and Identification: Testing the Face-Space Framework , 2000, Psychological science.

[40]  M. Riesenhuber,et al.  Categorization Training Results in Shape- and Category-Selective Human Neural Plasticity , 2007, Neuron.

[41]  I. Biederman,et al.  Tuning for shape dimensions in macaque inferior temporal cortex , 2005, The European journal of neuroscience.

[42]  I. Biederman,et al.  Representation of regular and irregular shapes in macaque inferotemporal cortex. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[43]  Muge M. Bakircioglu,et al.  Mapping visual cortex in monkeys and humans using surface-based atlases , 2001, Vision Research.

[44]  K. Grill-Spector The neural basis of object perception , 2003, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[45]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Atypical objects are easier to spot , 2009 .

[46]  Ulrike Hahn,et al.  Similarity-based asymmetries in perceptual matching. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[47]  Paul E. Downing,et al.  Division of Labor between Lateral and Ventral Extrastriate Representations of Faces, Bodies, and Objects , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[48]  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.

[49]  Guy A. Orban,et al.  The Extraction of 3D Shape from Texture and Shading in the Human Brain , 2008, Cerebral cortex.

[50]  H. Wilson,et al.  The nature of synthetic face adaptation , 2005, Vision Research.

[51]  G. Aguirre,et al.  Different spatial scales of shape similarity representation in lateral and ventral LOC. , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[52]  H. Barlow Vision: A theory about the functional role and synaptic mechanism of visual after-effects , 1991 .

[53]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Face perception: domain specific, not process specific. , 2004, Neuron.

[54]  Nicolas Davidenko,et al.  Face‐likeness and image variability drive responses in human face‐selective ventral regions , 2012, Human brain mapping.

[55]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[56]  Alex Martin,et al.  Properties and mechanisms of perceptual priming , 1998, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[57]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  A Preference for Contralateral Stimuli in Human Object- and Face-Selective Cortex , 2007, PloS one.

[58]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Subordinate Categorization Enhances the Neural Selectivity in Human Object-selective Cortex for Fine Shape Differences , 2009, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[59]  Doris Y. Tsao,et al.  A face feature space in the macaque temporal lobe , 2009, Nature Neuroscience.

[60]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[61]  R. Henson,et al.  Multiple levels of visual object constancy revealed by event-related fMRI of repetition priming , 2002, Nature Neuroscience.

[62]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement , 1988 .

[63]  Z Kourtzi,et al.  Representation of Perceived Object Shape by the Human Lateral Occipital Complex , 2001, Science.

[64]  G. Rhodes,et al.  Adaptive norm-based coding of facial identity , 2006, Vision Research.

[65]  R. Vogels,et al.  Properties of shape tuning of macaque inferior temporal neurons examined using rapid serial visual presentation. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[66]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  Relations between prototype, exemplar, and decision bound models of categorization , 1993 .

[67]  H. Blum Biological shape and visual science. I. , 1973, Journal of theoretical biology.