Holes, objects, and the left hemisphere

The human visual system is remarkably efficient at extracting useful information, especially in detecting objects in our environment. Many models have been developed over the years to account for this amazing ability, most following the sensible hierarchy of detecting features first and then integrating them to build objects (1, 2). A notable exception to this general scheme is the theory of topological perception proposed by Lin Chen (3). During the last 25 years, Lin Chen and colleagues have argued for the importance of extracting global topological properties as primitives in object perception (4). The emphasis on global properties in perception is not new [e.g., Gestalt theory of perception (5)], but the topological perception theory specifically defines the global properties as topological invariants. In addition, this theory states that the primitives of visual form perception are geometric invariants at different levels of structural stability under transformations. Thus, a more stable property would be more primitive and more important to extract early in the process. Topological properties are the most stable in relation to other geometrical properties such as projective, affine, and Euclidean properties. In a recent issue of PNAS, Lin Chen and colleagues (6) reported the intriguing discovery that the human visual system's sensitivity to topological properties is superior in the left hemisphere, at least for right-handers (Fig. 1).

[1]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[2]  K. Koffka Principles Of Gestalt Psychology , 1936 .

[3]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  The Fusiform Face Area: A Module in Human Extrastriate Cortex Specialized for Face Perception , 1997, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[4]  L Chen,et al.  Topological structure in visual perception. , 1982, Science.

[5]  C. B. Cave,et al.  Evidence for two types of spatial representations: hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  W. Richards,et al.  Perception as Bayesian Inference , 2008 .

[7]  H. Helmholtz Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics , 1963 .

[8]  A. Yuille,et al.  Object perception as Bayesian inference. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[9]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: computational analyses and computer simulations. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  D. Purves,et al.  Why we see what we do : an empirical theory of vision , 2003 .

[11]  J B Hellige,et al.  Hemispheric asymmetry for visual information processing. , 1996, Acta neurobiologiae experimentalis.

[12]  Lin Chen The topological approach to perceptual organization , 2005 .

[13]  A. Treisman Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[14]  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 .

[15]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[16]  Yan Zhuo,et al.  Global topological dominance in the left hemisphere , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  James R Pomerantz,et al.  Wholes, holes, and basic features in vision , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  Rainer Goebel,et al.  Coordinate and categorical judgements in spatial imagery. An fMRI study , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[19]  C. Segebarth,et al.  Categorical and coordinate spatial relations: fMRI evidence for hemispheric specialization. , 1999, Neuroreport.

[20]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .