Mugs and Plants: Object Semantic Knowledge Alters Perceptual Processing With Behavioral Ramifications

Abstract

Neural processing of objects with action associations recruits dorsal visual regions more than the neural processing of objects without such associations. We hypothesized that because the dorsal and ventral visual pathways have differing proportions of magno- and parvocellular input, there should be behavioral differences in perceptual tasks between manipulable and nonmanipulable objects. This hypothesis was tested in college-age adults across five experiments (Ns = 26, 26, 30, 25, and 25) using a gap-detection task, suited to the spatial resolution of parvocellular processing, and an object-flicker-discrimination task, suited to the temporal resolution of magnocellular processing. Directly predicted from the cellular composition of each pathway, a strong nonmanipulable-object advantage was observed in gap detection, and a small manipulable-object advantage was observed in flicker discrimination. Additionally, these effects were modulated by reducing object recognition through inversion and by suppressing magnocellular processing using red light. These results establish perceptual differences between objects dependent on semantic knowledge.

Keywords

object recognition perception semantic memory visual perception vision open data open materials

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

R. A.

Weidler

B. J.

(2014). Trade-offs in visual processing for stimuli near the hands. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 76, 383–390. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0583-1

Almeida

Fintzi

A. R.

Mahon

B. Z.

(2013). Tool manipulation knowledge is retrieved by way of the ventral visual object processing pathway. Cortex, 49(9), 2334–2344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2013.05.004

Almeida

Mahon

B. Z.

Caramazza

(2010). The role of the dorsal visual processing stream in tool identification. Psychological Science, 21(6), 772–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371343

Almeida

Mahon

B. Z.

Nakayama

Caramazza

(2008). Unconscious processing dissociates along categorical lines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105(39), 15214–15218. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805867105

Almeida

Mahon

B. Z.

Zapater-Raberov

Dziuba

Cabaço

Marques

Caramazza

(2014). Grasping with the eyes: The role of elongation in visual recognition of manipulable objects. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 319–335. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-013-0208-0

Baizer

J. S.

Ungerleider

L. G.

Desimone

(1991). Organization of visual inputs to the inferior temporal and posterior parietal cortex in macaques. Journal of Neuroscience, 11(1), 168–190. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.11-01-00168.1991

Blasdel

G. G.

Lund

J. S.

(1983). Termination of afferent axons in macaque striate cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 3(7), 1389–1413.

Bocanegra

B. R.

Zeelenberg

(2009). Emotion improves and impairs early vision. Psychological Science, 20(6), 707–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02354.x

Chan

Peterson

M. A.

Barense

M. D.

Pratt

(2013). How action influences object perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00462

10.

Chao

L. L.

Martin

(2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12(4), 478–484. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0635

11.

Chen

Snow

J. C.

Culham

J. C.

Goodale

M. A.

(2018). What role does “elongation” play in “tool-specific” activation and connectivity in the dorsal and ventral visual streams? Cerebral Cortex, 28(4), 1117–1131. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhx017

12.

Derrington

A. M.

Lennie

(1984). Spatial and temporal contrast sensitivities of neurones in lateral geniculate nucleus of macaque. The Journal of Physiology, 357(1), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1984.sp015498

13.

DeYoe

E. A.

van Essen

D. C.

(1988). Concurrent processing streams in monkey visual cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 11(5), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(88)90130-0

14.

Diamond

Carey

(1986). Why faces are and are not special. An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.2.107

15.

Fang

(2005). Cortical responses to invisible objects in the human dorsal and ventral pathways. Nature Neuroscience, 8(10), 1380–1385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1537

16.

Ferrera

V. P.

Nealey

T. A.

Maunsell

J. H. R.

(1992). Mixed parvocellular and magnocellular geniculate signals in visual area V4. Nature, 358(6389), 756–758. https://doi.org/10.1038/358756a0

17.

Firestone

Scholl

(2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 39, Article E229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15000965

18.

Freud

Plaut

D. C.

Behrmann

(2016). “What” is happening in the dorsal visual pathway. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(10), 773–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.003

19.

Gomez

M. A.

Skiba

R. M.

Snow

J. C.

(2018). Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psychological Science, 29(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617730599

20.

Gozli

D. G.

West

G. L.

Pratt

(2012). Hand position alters vision by biasing processing through different visual pathways. Cognition, 124(2), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.008

21.

Graziano

M. S. A.

Gross

C. G.

(1993). A bimodal map of space: Somatosensory receptive fields in the macaque putamen with corresponding visual receptive fields. Experimental Brain Research, 97(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00228820

22.

Kass

Raftery

(1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

23.

Kastner

Chen

Jeong

S. K.

Mruczek

R. E. B.

(2017). A brief comparative review of primate posterior parietal cortex: A novel hypothesis on the human toolmaker. Neuropsychologia, 105, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.01.034.A

24.

Kravitz

D. J.

Saleem

K. S.

Baker

C. I.

Mishkin

(2011). A new neural framework for visuospatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3008

25.

Kravitz

D. J.

Saleem

K. S.

Baker

C. I.

Ungerleider

L. G.

Mishkin

(2013). The ventral visual pathway: An expanded neural framework for the processing of object quality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.011

26.

Kusunoki

Gottlieb

Goldberg

M. E.

(2000). The lateral intraparietal area as a salience map: The representation of abrupt onset, stimulus motion, and task relevance. Vision Research, 40(10), 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(99)00212-6

27.

Leonova

Pokorny

Smith

V. C.

(2003). Spatial frequency processing in inferred PC- and MC-pathways. Vision Research, 43(20), 2133–2139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00333-X

28.

Leventhal

A. G.

Rodieck

R. W.

Dreher

(1981). Retinal ganglion cell classes in the Old World monkey: Morphology and central projections. Science, 213(4512), 1142–1144. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7268423

29.

Livingstone

M. S.

Hubel

D. H.

(1988). Do the relative mapping densities of the magno- and parvocellular systems vary with eccentricity? Journal of Neuroscience, 8(11), 4334–4339. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.08-11-04334.1988

30.

Mahon

B. Z.

Milleville

S. C.

Negri

G. A. L.

Rumiati

R. I.

Caramazza

Martin

(2007). Action-related properties shape object representations in the ventral stream. Neuron, 55(3), 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.07.011

31.

Maunsell

J. H. R.

Ghose

G. M.

Assad

J. A.

McAdams

C. J.

Boudreau

C. E.

Noerager

B. D.

(1999). Visual response latencies of magnocellular and parvocellular LGN neurons in macaque monkeys. Visual Neuroscience, 16(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523899156177

32.

Maunsell

J. H. R.

Nealey

T. A.

DePriest

D. D.

(1990). Magnocellular and parvocellular contributions to responses in the middle temporal visual area (MT) of the macaque monkey. Journal of Neuroscience, 10(10), 3323–3334. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.10-10-03323.1990

33.

McAnany

J. J.

Alexander

K. R.

(2008). Spatial frequencies used in Landolt C orientation judgments: Relation to inferred magnocellular and parvocellular pathways. Vision Research, 48(26), 2615–2624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.012

34.

Mishkin

Ungerleider

L. G.

(1982). Contribution of striate inputs to the visuospatial functions of parieto-preoccipital cortex in monkeys. Behavioural Brain Research, 6(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4328(82)90081-X

35.

Nassi

J. J.

Callaway

E. M.

(2009). Parallel processing strategies of the primate visual system. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(5), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2619

36.

Noppeney

Price

C. J.

Penny

W. D.

Friston

K. J.

(2006). Two distinct neural mechanisms for category-selective responses. Cerebral Cortex, 16(3), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi123

37.

Pelli

D. G.

Bex

(2013). Measuring contrast sensitivity. Vision Research, 90, 10–14.

38.

Perry

V. H.

Oehler

Cowey

(1984). Retinal ganglion cells that project to the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus in the macaque monkey. Neuroscience, 12(4), 1101–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4522(84)90006-X

39.

Pokorny

Smith

V. C.

(1997). Psychophysical signatures associated with magnocellular and parvocellular pathway contrast gain: Comment. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 14(9), 2477–2486. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.15.002440

40.

Sakuraba

Sakai

Yamanaka

Yokosawa

Hirayama

(2012). Does the human dorsal stream really process a category for tools? Journal of Neuroscience, 32(11), 3949–3953. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3973-11.2012

41.

van den Bergh

van Doorn

Marsman

Draws

van Kesteren

E.-J.

Derks

Dablander

Gronau

Q. F.

Kucharský

Š.

Gupta

A. R. K. N.

Sarafoglou

Voelkel

J. G.

Stefan

Hinne

Matzke

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2020). A tutorial on conducting and interpreting a Bayesian ANOVA in JASP. L’Année Psychologique, 120(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.3917/anpsy1.201.0073

42.

Vaziri-Pashkam

(2017). Goal-directed visual processing differentially impacts human ventral and dorsal visual representations. Journal of Neuroscience, 37(36), 8767–8782. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3392-16.2017

43.

West

G. L.

Anderson

A. K.

Bedwell

J. S.

Pratt

(2010). Red diffuse light suppresses the accelerated perception of fear. Psychological Science, 21(7), 992–999. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371966

44.

Wiesel

T. N.

Hubel

D. H.

(1966). Spatial and chromatic interactions in the lateral geniculate body of the rhesus monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 29(6), 1115–1156. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1966.29.6.1115

45.

Yantis

Jonides

(1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 601–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.601

46.

Yeshurun

(2004). Isoluminant stimuli and red background attenuate the effects of transient spatial attention on temporal resolution. Vision Research, 44(12), 1375–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2003.12.016

47.

Zhou

Y.-D.

Fuster

J. M.

(2000). Visuo-tactile cross-modal associations in cortical somatosensory cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 97(17), 9777–9782. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.17.9777