Cue Competition Affects Temporal Dynamics of Edge-assignment in Human Visual Cortex

Edge-assignment determines the perception of relative depth across an edge and the shape of the closer side. Many cues determine edge-assignment, but relatively little is known about the neural mechanisms involved in combining these cues. Here, we manipulated extremal edge and attention cues to bias edge-assignment such that these two cues either cooperated or competed. To index their neural representations, we flickered figure and ground regions at different frequencies and measured the corresponding steady-state visual-evoked potentials (SSVEPs). Figural regions had stronger SSVEP responses than ground regions, independent of whether they were attended or unattended. In addition, competition and cooperation between the two edge-assignment cues significantly affected the temporal dynamics of edge-assignment processes. The figural SSVEP response peaked earlier when the cues causing it cooperated than when they competed, but sustained edge-assignment effects were equivalent for cooperating and competing cues, consistent with a winner-take-all outcome. These results provide physiological evidence that figure–ground organization involves competitive processes that can affect the latency of figural assignment.

[1]  Victor A. F. Lamme The neurophysiology of figure-ground segregation in primary visual cortex , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[2]  S. A. Hillyard,et al.  Sustained division of the attentional spotlight , 2003, Nature.

[3]  Alex R. Wade,et al.  Figure-ground interaction in the human visual cortex. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[4]  Robert Desimone,et al.  Parallel and Serial Neural Mechanisms for Visual Search in Macaque Area V4 , 2005, Science.

[5]  W. Singer,et al.  Temporal binding and the neural correlates of sensory awareness , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Thomas Elbert,et al.  Modulation of auditory responses during oddball tasks , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[7]  B. Gibson,et al.  Must Figure-Ground Organization Precede Object Recognition? An Assumption in Peril , 1994 .

[8]  R. von der Heydt,et al.  Coding of Border Ownership in Monkey Visual Cortex , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[9]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Ordinal configural cues combine with metric disparity in depth perception. , 2005, Journal of vision.

[10]  D. P. Russell,et al.  Investigating neural correlates of conscious perception by frequency-tagged neuromagnetic responses. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Mary A Peterson,et al.  Implicit memory for novel figure-ground displays includes a history of cross-border competition. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  C. Tallon-Baudry,et al.  Attention and awareness in synchrony , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[13]  O. Bertrand,et al.  Oscillatory gamma activity in humans and its role in object representation , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The lateral occipital complex and its role in object recognition , 2001, Vision Research.

[15]  Mary Henle,et al.  Vision and artifact , 1977 .

[16]  Alex R. Wade,et al.  Cue-Invariant Networks for Figure and Background Processing in Human Visual Cortex , 2006, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[17]  Clara Casco,et al.  A visual evoked potential correlate of global figure-ground segmentation , 1999, Vision Research.

[18]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  Contextual Modulation in Primary Visual Cortex , 1996, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  S. Palmer,et al.  Extremal Edges A Powerful Cue to Depth Perception and Figure-Ground Organization , 2007 .

[20]  Li Zhaoping,et al.  Border Ownership from Intracortical Interactions in Visual Area V2 , 2005, Neuron.

[21]  G. Baylis,et al.  Shape-coding in IT cells generalizes over contrast and mirror reversal, but not figure-ground reversal , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  Anastasia V Flevaris,et al.  Exogenous spatial attention influences figure-ground assignment. , 2010, Psychological science.

[23]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Separating Figure from Ground with a Parallel Network , 1986, Perception.

[24]  Steven J. Karau,et al.  Social Loafing: Research Findings^ Implications^ and Future Directions , 2022 .

[25]  M. Kupersmith Human Brain Electrophysiology , 1989 .

[26]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Information integration in perception and communication , 1996 .

[27]  F. Qiu,et al.  Figure-ground mechanisms provide structure for selective attention , 2007, Nature Neuroscience.

[28]  G. Sperling,et al.  Attentional modulation of SSVEP power depends on the network tagged by the flicker frequency. , 2006, Cerebral cortex.

[29]  J. Enns,et al.  The edge complex: Implicit memory for figure assignment in shape perception , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  Jon Driver,et al.  One-Sided Edge Assignment in Vision: 2. Part Decomposition, Shape Description, and Attention to Objects , 1995 .

[31]  R. O’Reilly,et al.  Figure-ground organization and object recognition processes: an interactive account. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  Floyd Ratliff,et al.  Intermodulation components of the visual evoked potential: Responses to lateral and superimposed stimuli , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[33]  Jon Driver,et al.  One-Sided Edge Assignment in Vision: 1. Figure-Ground Segmentation and Attention to Objects , 1995 .

[34]  A. Wilkins,et al.  Photic‐ and Pattern‐induced Seizures: A Review for the Epilepsy Foundation of America Working Group , 2005, Epilepsia.

[35]  H. Spekreijse,et al.  FigureGround Segregation in a Recurrent Network Architecture , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[36]  Victor A. F. Lamme,et al.  Figure-ground activity in primary visual cortex is suppressed by anesthesia. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  Johannes J. Fahrenfort,et al.  Feedforward and Recurrent Processing in Scene Segmentation: Electroencephalography and Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2008, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[38]  Matthias M. Müller,et al.  Can the spotlight of attention be shaped like a doughnut? Evidence from steady-state visual evoked potentials. , 2002, Psychological science.

[39]  O. Bertrand,et al.  Oscillatory gamma activity in humans: a possible role for object representation. , 2000, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[40]  Kalanit Grill-Spector,et al.  Representation of shapes, edges, and surfaces across multiple cues in the human visual cortex. , 2008, Journal of neurophysiology.

[41]  A. Treisman,et al.  Object tokens, attention, and visual memory. , 1996 .

[42]  W. B. Thompson,et al.  Relative motion: Kinetic information for the order of depth at an edge , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  H. Barrow,et al.  Computational vision , 1981, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[44]  D. P. Russell,et al.  Increased Synchronization of Neuromagnetic Responses during Conscious Perception , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[45]  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.

[46]  Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi,et al.  Object memory effects on figure assignment: conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient , 2000, Vision Research.

[47]  Stephen E Palmer,et al.  Familiar shapes attract attention in figure-ground displays , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  Harry G. Barrow,et al.  Interpreting Line Drawings as Three-Dimensional Surfaces , 1980, Artif. Intell..

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

[50]  Walter Gerbino,et al.  Convexity and Symmetry in Figure-Ground Organization , 1976 .

[51]  R. Blair,et al.  An alternative method for significance testing of waveform difference potentials. , 1993, Psychophysiology.

[52]  Hong Zhou,et al.  Representation of stereoscopic edges in monkey visual cortex , 2000, Vision Research.

[53]  Mary A Peterson,et al.  Inhibitory competition between shape properties in figure-ground perception. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[54]  D. Kersten,et al.  Border Ownership Selectivity in Human Early Visual Cortex and its Modulation by Attention , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[55]  F. Qiu,et al.  Figure and Ground in the Visual Cortex: V2 Combines Stereoscopic Cues with Gestalt Rules , 2005, Neuron.

[56]  Leyre Castro,et al.  Figure-ground assignment in pigeons: Evidence for a figural benefit , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[57]  M. Peterson,et al.  On what is bound in figures and grounds , 2001 .

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

[59]  S. Palmer,et al.  Edge-region grouping in figure-ground organization and depth perception. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[60]  Lauri Parkkonen,et al.  Early visual brain areas reflect the percept of an ambiguous scene , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[61]  R. O’Reilly,et al.  Graded effects in hierarchical figure-ground organization: reply to Peterson (1999). , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[62]  G. Mathern,et al.  Epilepsia , 1991, NEURO FUNDAMENTAL.

[63]  W Singer,et al.  Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.