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.
AbramsR. A.WeidlerB. 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
2.
AlmeidaJ.FintziA. R.MahonB. 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
3.
AlmeidaJ.MahonB. Z.CaramazzaA. (2010). The role of the dorsal visual processing stream in tool identification. Psychological Science, 21(6), 772–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371343
4.
AlmeidaJ.MahonB. Z.NakayamaK.CaramazzaA. (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
5.
AlmeidaJ.MahonB. Z.Zapater-RaberovV.DziubaA.CabaçoT.MarquesF.CaramazzaA. (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
6.
BaizerJ. S.UngerleiderL. G.DesimoneR. (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
7.
BlasdelG. G.LundJ. S. (1983). Termination of afferent axons in macaque striate cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 3(7), 1389–1413.
ChanD.PetersonM. A.BarenseM. D.PrattJ. (2013). How action influences object perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00462
10.
ChaoL. L.MartinA. (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.
ChenJ.SnowJ. C.CulhamJ. C.GoodaleM. 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.
DerringtonA. M.LennieP. (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
DiamondR.CareyS. (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.
FangF.HeS. (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.
FerreraV. P.NealeyT. A.MaunsellJ. 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.
FirestoneC.SchollB. (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.
FreudE.PlautD. C.BehrmannM. (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.
GomezM. A.SkibaR. M.SnowJ. C. (2018). Graspable objects grab attention more than images do. Psychological Science, 29(2), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617730599
20.
GozliD. G.WestG. L.PrattJ. (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.
GrazianoM. S. A.GrossC. 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
KastnerS.ChenQ.JeongS. K.MruczekR. 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.
KravitzD. J.SaleemK. S.BakerC. I.MishkinM. (2011). A new neural framework for visuospatial processing. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3008
25.
KravitzD. J.SaleemK. S.BakerC. I.UngerleiderL. G.MishkinM. (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.
KusunokiM.GottliebJ.GoldbergM. 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.
LeonovaA.PokornyJ.SmithV. 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.
LeventhalA. G.RodieckR. W.DreherB. (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.
LivingstoneM. S.HubelD. 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.
MahonB. Z.MillevilleS. C.NegriG. A. L.RumiatiR. I.CaramazzaA.MartinA. (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.
MaunsellJ. H. R.GhoseG. M.AssadJ. A.McAdamsC. J.BoudreauC. E.NoeragerB. 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.
MaunsellJ. H. R.NealeyT. A.DePriestD. 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.
McAnanyJ. J.AlexanderK. 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.
MishkinM.UngerleiderL. 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.
NassiJ. J.CallawayE. M. (2009). Parallel processing strategies of the primate visual system. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(5), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2619
36.
NoppeneyU.PriceC. J.PennyW. D.FristonK. J. (2006). Two distinct neural mechanisms for category-selective responses. Cerebral Cortex, 16(3), 437–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi123
PerryV. H.OehlerR.CoweyA. (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.
PokornyJ.SmithV. 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.
SakurabaS.SakaiS.YamanakaM.YokosawaK.HirayamaK. (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 BerghD.van DoornJ.MarsmanM.DrawsT.van KesterenE.-J.DerksK.DablanderF.GronauQ. F.KucharskýŠ.GuptaA. R. K. N.SarafoglouA.VoelkelJ. G.StefanA.LyA.HinneM.MatzkeD.WagenmakersE.-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-PashkamM.XuY. (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.
WestG. L.AndersonA. K.BedwellJ. S.PrattJ. (2010). Red diffuse light suppresses the accelerated perception of fear. Psychological Science, 21(7), 992–999. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610371966
44.
WieselT. N.HubelD. 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.
YantisS.JonidesJ. (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.
YeshurunY. (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.
ZhouY.-D.FusterJ. 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
