Dissociable Neural Subsystems Underlie Abstract and Specific Object Recognition

Participants named objects presented in the left or right visual field during a test phase, after viewing centrally presented same-exemplar objects, different-exemplar objects, and words that name objects during an initial encoding phase. In two experiments, repetition priming was exemplar-abstract yet visual when test objects were presented directly to the left cerebral hemisphere, but exemplar-specific when test objects were presented directly to the right cerebral hemisphere, contrary to predictions from single-system theories of object recognition. In two other experiments, stimulus degradation during encoding and task demands during test modulated these results in predicted ways. The results support the theory that dissociable neural subsystems operate in parallel (not in sequence) to underlie visual object recognition: An abstract-category subsystem operates more effectively than a specific-exemplar subsystem in the left hemisphere, and a specific-exemplar subsystem operates more effectively than an abstract-category subsystem in the right hemisphere.

[1]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  R. C. Oldfield.  THE ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS OF HANDEDNESS , 1971 .

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

[4]  J. Bradshaw,et al.  The nature of hemispheric specialization in man , 1981, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[5]  Leslie G. Ungerleider.  Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[6]  M. Banich,et al.  Lateral asymmetries in the naming of words and corresponding line drawings , 1982, Brain and Language.

[7]  J.A. Anderson,et al.  Theory of categorization based on distributed memory storage. , 1984 .

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

[9]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  Joseph B. Hellige,et al.  Role of input factors in visual-field asymmetries , 1986, Brain and Cognition.

[11]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[12]  M. Corballis.  Laterality and human evolution. , 1989, Psychological review.

[13]  Stephen Christman,et al.  Perceptual characteristics in visual laterality research , 1989, Brain and Cognition.

[14]  H L Roediger,et al.  Specifying Criteria for Postulating Memory Systems a , 1990, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[15]  M. Farah.  Visual Agnosia: Disorders of Object Recognition and What They Tell Us about Normal Vision , 1990 .

[16]  Martha J. Farah,et al.  Cognitive Neuropsychology: Patterns of Co-occurrence Among the Associative Agnosias: Implications for Visual Object Representation , 1991 .

[17]  E. E. Cooper,et al.  Object recognition and laterality: Null effects , 1991, Neuropsychologia.

[18]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[19]  I Biederman,et al.  Metric invariance in object recognition: a review and further evidence. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[20]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[21]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Form-specific visual priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  I. Biederman,et al.  Recognizing depth-rotated objects: evidence and conditions for three-dimensional viewpoint invariance. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Kavitha Srinivas.  Perceptual specificity in nonverbal priming. , 1993 .

[24]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Form-Specific Explicit and Implicit Memory in the Right Cerebral Hemisphere , 1994 .

[25]  M J Tarr,et al.  Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  M. Tarr.  Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  F. Miezin,et al.  Functional anatomical studies of explicit and implicit memory retrieval tasks , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[28]  I. Biederman,et al.  Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). , 1995 .

[29]  C. J. Marsolek.  Abstract visual-form representations in the left cerebral hemisphere. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  S. Ullman.  High-Level Vision: Object Recognition and Visual Cognition , 1996 .

[31]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Form-specific visual priming for new associations in the right cerebral hemisphere , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[32]  S. Christman.  Cerebral asymmetries in sensory and perceptual processing , 1997 .

[33]  Chad J. Marsolek,et al.  COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSES AND HEMISPHERIC ASYMMETRIES IN VISUAL-FORM RECOGNITION , 1997 .

[34]  E. Darcy Burgund,et al.  Letter-Case-Specific Priming in the Right Cerebral Hemisphere with a Form-Specific Perceptual Identification Task , 1997, Brain and Cognition.

[35]  A. Dale,et al.  Functional-Anatomic Correlates of Object Priming in Humans Revealed by Rapid Presentation Event-Related fMRI , 1998, Neuron.

[36]  S Edelman,et al.  Representation is representation of similarities , 1996, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[37]  E. D. Burgund,et al.  Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent object recognition in dissociable neural subsystems , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.