How veridical is feedback of visual object information to foveal retinotopic cortex?
-
1
Macquarie University, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its Disorders, Australia
-
2
Macquarie University, Perception in Action Research Centre, Department of Cognitive Science, Australia
Category information about objects presented in the periphery can be decoded from patterns of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activity in foveal retinotopic cortex, a cortical region wholly separate from the corresponding feedforward information. In this fMRI study, we investigated the nature of this foveal representation by presenting two categories of novel objects at two different orientations. Participants centrally fixated and reported if two within-category objects presented in the periphery were identical or different exemplars. Multi-variate pattern analysis was used to determine whether orientation and category information could be decoded from fMRI data. Preliminary data suggests the classifier can reliably differentiate between differently orientated objects at the fovea. We also found category information present that was abstracted from orientation information; that is, category information is represented at the fovea even when the classifier is trained on objects presented in one orientation and tested on objects presented in a different orientation. This finding suggests that the foveal representation of peripherally presented objects contains both orientation information and object category information in a more generic form than its original presentation.
Keywords:
Attention,
Feedback,
functional MRI,
Vision,
object perception
Conference:
XII International Conference on Cognitive Neuroscience (ICON-XII), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 27 Jul - 31 Jul, 2014.
Presentation Type:
Poster
Topic:
Sensation and Perception
Citation:
Weldon
K,
Woolgar
A,
Rich
A and
Williams
M
(2015). How veridical is feedback of visual object information to foveal retinotopic cortex?.
Conference Abstract:
XII International Conference on Cognitive Neuroscience (ICON-XII).
doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2015.217.00358
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
19 Feb 2015;
Published Online:
24 Apr 2015.
*
Correspondence:
Ms. Kimberly Weldon, Macquarie University, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its Disorders, Sydney, Australia, kim.weldon@mq.edu.au