CEPs can be a complementary tool to the recording of LEPS for assessing the function of small-diameter Aδ-fibers and the spinothalamic tract.

Nonhuman primates are the main animal model to investigate high-level properties of human cortical vision. For one property, transformation-invariant object recognition, recent studies have revealed interesting and unknown capabilities in rats. Here we report on the ability of rats to rely upon second-order cues that are important to structure the incoming visual images into figure and background. Rats performed a visual shape discrimination task in which the shapes were not only defined by first-order luminance information but also by a variety of second-order cues such as a change in texture properties. Once the rats were acquainted with a first set of second-order stimuli, they showed a surprising degree of generalization towards new second-order stimuli. The limits of these capabilities were tested in various ways, and the ability to extract the shapes broke down only in extreme cases where no local cues were available to solve the task. These results demonstrate how rats are able to make choices based on fairly complex strategies when necessary.

Because tools are manipulated for the purpose of action, they are often considered to be a specific object category that associates perceptual and motor properties. Their neural processing has been studied extensively by comparing the cortical activity elicited by the separate presentation of tool and non-tool objects, assuming that observed differences are solely due to activity selective for processing tools. Here, using a fast periodic visual stimulation (FPVS) paradigm, we isolated EEG activity selectively related to the processing of tool objects embedded in a stream of non-tool objects. Participants saw a continuous sequence of tool and non-tool images at a 3.7 Hz presentation rate, arranged as a repeating pattern of four non-tool images followed by one tool image. We expected the stimulation to generate an EEG response at the frequency of image presentation (3.7 Hz) and its harmonics, reflecting activity common to the processing of tool and non-tool images. Most importantly, if tool and non-tool images evoked different neural responses, we expected this differential activity to generate an additional response at the frequency of tool images (3.7 Hz/5 = 0.74 Hz). To ensure that this response was not due to unaccounted for systematic differences in low-level visual features, we also tested a phase-scrambled version of the sequence. The periodic insertion of tool stimuli within a stream of non-tool stimuli elicited a significant EEG response at the tool-selective frequency and its harmonics. This response was reduced when the images were phase-scrambled. We conclude that FPVS is a promising technique to selectively measure tool-related activity.

No abstract

No abstract