Effects of stereoscopic disparity on early ERP components during classification of three-dimensional objects

Abstract

This study investigates the effects of stereo disparity on the perception of three-dimensional (3D) object shape. We tested the hypothesis that stereo input modulates the brain activity related to perceptual analyses of 3D shape configuration during image classification. High-density (256-channel) electroencephalogram (EEG) was used to record the temporal dynamics of visual shape processing under conditions of two-dimensional (2D) and 3D visual presentation. On each trial, observers made image classification judgements (‘Same’/’Different’) to two briefly presented, multi-part, novel objects. On different-object trials, stimuli could either share volumetric parts but not the global 3D shape configuration and have different parts but the same global 3D shape configuration or differ on both aspects. Analyses using mass univariate contrasts showed that the earliest sensitivity to 2D versus 3D viewing appeared as a negative deflection over posterior locations on the N1 component between 160 and 220 ms post-stimulus onset. Subsequently, event-related potential (ERP) modulations during the N2 time window between 240 and 370 ms were linked to image classification. N2 activity reflected two distinct components – an early N2 (240-290 ms) and a late N2 (290-370 ms) – that showed different patterns of responses to 2D and 3D input and differential sensitivity to 3D object structure. The results revealed that stereo input modulates the neural correlates of 3D object shape. We suggest that this reflects differential perceptual processing of object shape under conditions of stereo or mono input. These findings challenge current theories that attribute no functional role for stereo input during 3D shape perception.

Keywords

3D shape perception global configuration local part structure evoked potentials ERP

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akay

Celebi

(2009). A brain electrophysiological correlate of depth perception. Neurosciences, 14, 139–142.

Arguin

Leek

E. C.

(2003). Orientation invariance in visual object priming depends on prime-target asynchrony. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 469–477.

Arguin

Saumier

(2004). Independent processing of parts and of their spatial organisation in complex visual objects. Psychological Science, 15, 629–633.

Behrmann

Kimchi

(2003). What does visual agnosia tell us about perceptual organisation and its relationship to object perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 19–42.

Behrmann

Peterson

M. A.

Moscovitch

Satoru

(2006). Independent representation of parts and the relations between them: Evidence from integrative agnosia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1169–1184.

Bennett

D. J.

Vuong

Q. C.

(2006). A stereo advantage in generalizing over changes in viewpoint on object recognition tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1082–1093.

Biederman

(1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.

Burke

Taubert

Higman

(2007). Are face representations viewpoint dependent? A stereo advantage for generalizing across different views of faces. Vision Research, 47, 2164–2169.

Cadieu

Kouh

Pasupathy

Connor

Riesenhuber

Poggio

(2007). A mode of v4 shape selectivity and invariance. Journal of Neurophysiology, 98, 1733–1750.

10.

Chan

M. W.

Stevenson

A. K.

Pizlo

(2006). Binocular shape constancy from novel views: The role of a priori constraints. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1124–1139.

11.

Cristino

Davitt

Hayward

W. G.

Leek

E. C.

(2015). Stereo disparity facilitates view generalization during shape recognition for solid multipart objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 2419–2436.

12.

DeAngelis

G. C.

Newsome

W. T.

(1999). Organisation of disparity-selective neurons in macaque area MT. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 1398–1415.

13.

Doniger

G. M.

Foxe

J. J.

Murray

M. M.

Higgins

B. A.

Snodgrass

J. G.

Schroeder

C. E.

Javitt

D. C.

(2000). Activation timecourse of ventral visual stream object-recognition areas: High density electrical mapping of perceptual closure processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 615–621.

14.

Doniger

G. M.

Foxe

J. J.

Schroeder

C. E.

Murray

M. M.

Higgins

B. A.

Javitt

D. C.

(2001). Visual perceptual learning in human object recognition areas: A repetition priming study using high-density electrical mapping. NeuroImage, 13, 305–313.

15.

Edelman

Bulthoff

H. H.

(1992). Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects. Vision Research, 32, 2385–2400.

16.

Gao

Cao

(2015). Electrophysiological evidence of separate pathways for the perception of depth and 3D objects. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 96, 65–73.

17.

Gilaie-Dotan

Ullman

Kushnir

Malach

(2001). Shape-selective stereo processing in human object-related visual areas. Human Brain Mapping, 15, 67–79.

18.

Groppe

D. M.

Urbach

T. P.

Kutas

(2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields I: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology, 48, 1711–1725.

19.

Guthrie

Buchwald

J. S.

(1991). Significance testing of difference potentials. Psychophysiology, 28, 240–244.

20.

Harris

I. M.

Dux

P. E.

Benito

C. T.

Leek

E. C.

(2008). Orientation sensitivity at different stages of object processing: Evidence from repetition priming and naming. PLoS ONE, 3(5), e2256.

21.

Hummel

J. E.

(2013). Object recognition. In Reisburg

(Ed.), Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology (pp. 32–46). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

22.

Hummel

J. E.

Stankiewicz

B. J.

(1996). An architecture for rapid, hierarchical structural description. In Inui

McCelland

(Eds.), Attention and performance XVI: On information integration in perception and communication (pp. 93–121). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

23.

Humphrey

G. K.

Khan

S. C.

(1992). Recognizing novel views of three-dimensional objects. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 170–190.

24.

Kasai

Morotomi

(2001). Event-related brain potentials during selective attention to depth and form in global stereopsis. Vision Research, 41, 1379–1388.

25.

Kasai

Morotomi

Katayama

Kumada

(2003). Attending to a location in three-dimensional space modulates early ERPs. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 273–285.

26.

Lee

Y. L.

Saunders

J. A.

(2011). Stereo improves 3D shape discrimination even when rich monocular shape cues are available. Journal of Vision, 11(9), 6.

27.

Leek

E. C.

(1998a). The analysis of viewpoint-dependent time costs in visual recognition. Perception, 27, 803–816.

28.

Leek

E. C.

(1998b). Effects of stimulus viewpoint on the identification of common polyoriented objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 650–658.

29.

Leek

E. C.

Atherton

C. J.

Thierry

(2007). Computational mechanisms of object constancy for visual recognition revealed by event-related potentials. Vision Research, 47, 706–713.

30.

Leek

E. C.

Johnston

S. J.

(2006). A polarity effect in misoriented object recognition: The role of polar features in the computation of orientation-invariant shape representations. Visual Cognition, 13, 573–600.

31.

Liu

C. H.

Ward

Young

A. W.

(2006). Transfer between two- and three-dimensional representations of faces. Visual Cognition, 13, 51–64.

32.

Livingstone

Hubel

(1988). Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: Anatomy, physiology, and perception. Science, 240, 740–749.

33.

Mendola

J. D.

Dale

A. M.

Fischl

Liu

A. K.

Tootell

R. B.

(1999). The representation of illusory and real contours in human cortical visual areas revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 8560–8572.

34.

Murray

M. M.

Brunet

Michel

(2008). Topographic ERP analyses: A step-by-step tutorial review. Brain Topography, 20, 249–264.

35.

Murray

M. M.

Imber

M. L.

Javitt

D. C.

Foxe

J. J.

(2006). Boundary completion is automatic and dissociable from shape discrimination. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 12043–12054.

36.

Oldfield

R. C.

(1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.

37.

Pasqualotto

Hayward

W. G.

(2009). A stereo disadvantage for recognizing rotated familiar objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 832–838.

38.

Pegna

A. J.

Khateb

Murray

M. M.

Landis

Michel

C. M.

(2002). Neural processing of illusory and real contours revealed by high-density ERP mapping. NeuroReport, 13, 965–968.

39.

Perrin

Pernier

Bertrand

Giard

M. H.

Echallier

J. F.

(1987). Mapping of scalp potentials by surface spline interpolation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 66, 75–81.

40.

Pizlo

Sawada

Kropatsch

W. G.

Steinman

R. M.

(2010). New approach to the perception of 3D shape based on veridicality, complexity, symmetry and volume. Vision Research, 50, 1–11.

41.

Riesenhuber

Poggio

(1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1019–1025.

42.

Rock

DiVita

(1987). A case of viewer-centered object perception. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 280–293.

43.

Serre

Oliva

Poggio

(2007). A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 6424–6429.

44.

Severac Cauquil

Trotter

Taylor

M. J.

(2006). At what stage of neural processing do perspective depth cues make a difference? Experimental Brain Research, 170, 457–463.

45.

Tanaka

Uka

Yoshiyama

Kato

Fujita

(2001). Processing of shape defined by disparity in monkey inferior temporal cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85, 735–744.

46.

Tarr

M. J.

Bulthoff

H. H.

(Eds.) (1999). Object recognition in man, monkey, and machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

47.

Watt

S. J.

Bradshaw

M. F.

(2003). The visual control of reach and grasping: Binocular disparity and motion parallax. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 404–415.