Discrimination of Possible and Impossible Objects in Infancy

Shuwairi, Sarah M.; Albert, Marc K.; Johnson, Scott P.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01893.x

Cited by 51 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar findings (e.g., Caron et al, 1978;Shuwairi et al, 2007) also high light some of the behavioural changes (and the corresponding evoked poten tial changes) that allow somatosensory extemalization (Rigato et al, 2014). Rigato et al (2014) provided recent insights into how the developing nervous system establishes the external location of visual and somatosensory objects and re-maps the proximal stimulation (in receptor coordinates) into external coordinates.…”

Section: Space From Eye Movementssupporting

confidence: 53%

The Process of Distal Attribution Illuminated Through Studies of Sensory Substitution

Hartcher-O’Brien

Auvray

2014

Multisens Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When we interact with objects in our environment, as a general rule we are not aware of the proximal stimulation they provide, but we directly experience the external object. This process of assigning an external cause is known as distal attribution. It is extremely difficult to measure how distal attribution emerges because it arises so early in life and appears to be automatic. Sensory substitution systems give us the possibility to measure the process as it occurs online. With these devices, objects in our environment produce novel proximal stimulation patterns and individuals have to establish the link between the proximal stimulation and the distal object. This review disentangles the contributing factors that allow the nervous system to assign a distal cause, thereby creating the experience of an external world. In particular, it highlights the role of the assumption of a stable world, the role of movement, and finally that of calibration. From the existing sensory substitution literature it appears that distal attribution breaks down when one of these principles is violated and as such the review provides an important piece to the puzzle of distal attribution.

show abstract

Section: Space From Eye Movementssupporting

confidence: 53%

The Process of Distal Attribution Illuminated Through Studies of Sensory Substitution

Hartcher-O’Brien

Auvray

2014

Multisens Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, impossible objects provide unusual circumstances in which the 2-D features comprising an object are well defined whereas the overall 3-D structural interpretation of this object is incoherent. This unique object category was previously used to shed light on various domains such as long-term memory representation (e.g., Schacter, Cooper, & Delaney, 1990), development of perceptual processes in infants (e.g., Shuwairi, Albert, & Johnson, 2007), and perceptual processes that mediate the representation of 3-D information (e.g., Freud, Avidan, & Ganel, 2015). In the current study, we utilized possible and impossible objects in a multisession fMRI experimental design that allows probing the nature of the representation of objectsʼ 3-D structure in the visual cortex at the level of specific regional activity as well as at the level of distinct patterns of functional connectivity across regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Particularly, several studies demonstrated that the visual system of both animals (newly hatched chicks) and humans is highly susceptible to the distortions of objectsʼ 3-D structure, which underlie impossible objects (Regolin, Rugani, Stancher, & Vallortigara, 2011;Shuwairi, 2009;Shuwairi et al, 2007). This sensitivity further emphasizes the importance of 3-D interpretation for object recognition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to Object Impossibility in the Human Visual Cortex: Evidence from Functional Connectivity

Freud¹,

Rosenthal²,

Ganel³

et al. 2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Processing spatial configuration is a fundamental requirement for object recognition. Using fMRI, the neural basis underlying this ability was examined while human participants viewed possible and visually similar, but spatially impossible, objects presented for either long or short exposure duration. Response profiles in object-selective cortical regions exhibited sensitivity to object possibility, but only for the long exposure duration. Contrary, functional connectivity, indexed by the pairwise correlations between activation profiles across ROIs, revealed sensitivity to possibility, evident in enhanced correlations for impossible compared with possible objects. Such sensitivity was found even following a brief exposure duration, which allowed only minimal awareness of possibility. Importantly, this sensitivity was correlated with participants' general spatial ability as assessed by an independent neuropsychological test. These results suggest that the visual system is highly susceptible to objects' 3-D structural information even with minimal perceptual awareness. Such sensitivity is captured at the level of functional connectivity between object-selective regions, rather than the absolute level of within-region activity, implicating the role of interregional synchronization in the representation of objects' 3-D structure.

show abstract

“…Some previous studies measuring looking behavior in infants younger than 5 months also suggested sensitivity to pictorial depth cues (e.g. Bhatt & Waters, 1998; Shuwairi, Albert & Johnson, 2007), while other studies could not support this finding (e.g. Tsuruhara et al 2009, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Some studies measured infants’ preferential looking and concluded that infants as young as 3-months (e.g. Bhatt & Waters, 1998) and 4-months (Shuwairi, Albert & Johnson, 2007) have sensitivity to pictorial depth cues. For example, 3-month-old infants discriminated between cubes that varied in orientation as specified by shading and line junction cues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infants’ ability to respond to depth from the retinal size of human faces: Comparing monocular and binocular preferential-looking

Tsuruhara

Corrow

Kanazawa

et al. 2014

Infant Behavior and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine sensitivity to pictorial depth cues in young infants (4 and 5 months-of-age), we compared monocular and binocular preferential looking to a display on which two faces were equidistantly presented and one was larger than the other, depicting depth from the size of human faces. Because human faces vary little in size, the correlation between retinal size and distance can provide depth information. As a result, adults perceive a larger face as closer than a smaller one. Although binocular information for depth provided information that the faces in our display were equidistant, under monocular viewing, no such information was provided. Rather, the size of the faces indicated that one was closer than the other. Infants are known to look longer at apparently closer objects. Therefore, we hypothesized that infants would look longer at a larger face in the monocular than in the binocular condition if they perceived depth from the size of human faces. Because the displays were identical in the two conditions, any difference in looking-behavior between monocular and binocular viewing indicated sensitivity to depth information. Results showed that 5-month-old infants preferred the larger, apparently closer, face in the monocular condition compared to the binocular condition when static displays were presented. In addition, when presented with a dynamic display, 4-month-old infants showed a stronger ‘closer’ preference in the monocular condition compared to the binocular condition. This was not the case when the faces were inverted. These results suggest that even 4-month-old infants respond to depth information from a depth cue that may require learning, the size of faces.

show abstract

Discrimination of Possible and Impossible Objects in Infancy

Cited by 51 publications

References 29 publications

The Process of Distal Attribution Illuminated Through Studies of Sensory Substitution

The Process of Distal Attribution Illuminated Through Studies of Sensory Substitution

Sensitivity to Object Impossibility in the Human Visual Cortex: Evidence from Functional Connectivity

Infants’ ability to respond to depth from the retinal size of human faces: Comparing monocular and binocular preferential-looking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About