Impaired distance perception and size constancy following bilateral occipitoparietal damage

Abstract

Accurate distance perception depends on the processing and integration of a variety of monocular and binocular cues. Dorsal stream lesions can impair this process, but details of this neurocognitive relationship remain unclear. Here, we tested a patient with bilateral occipitoparietal damage and severely impaired stereopsis. We addressed four related questions: 1) Can distance and size perception survive limitations in perceiving monocular and binocular cues? 2) Are egocentric (selfreferential) and allocentric (object-referential) distance judgments similarly impaired? 3) Are distance measurements equally impaired in peripersonal and extrapersonal space? 4) Are size judgments possible when distance processing is impaired? The results demonstrate that the patient's lesions impaired both her distance and size perception, but not uniformly. Her performance when using an egocentric reference frame was more impaired than her performance when using an allocentric reference frame. Likewise, her distance judgments in peripersonal space were more impaired than those in extrapersonal space. The patient showed partial preservation in size processing of novel objects even when familiar size cues were removed. Keywords distance; depth; parietal; stereopsis; simultanagnosia; Balint's syndrome Impaired Distance Perception and Size Constancy Following Bilateral Occipitoparietal DamageA veridical representation of the three-dimensional world requires accurate perception of object distance and object size. Distance perception requires the integration of diverse cues; size perception is determined by size constancy, the scaling of an object's retinal subtense by estimated distance (Emmert, 1881). The neural correlates of these processes have long been linked to dorsal stream function. Ninety years ago, Holmes and Horrax reported the case study of a soldier with bilateral parietal lobe lesions who exhibited extensive distance perception deficits (Holmes & Horrax, 1919). This patient could not determine the closer of two objects even though he possessed normal visual acuity. He had also lost stereopsis, a binocular distance cue. Additional reports have linked distance perception deficits with dorsal stream damage (Critchley, 1953;Holmes, 1918;Riddoch, 1917). Other reports have related dorsal stream damage to deficits in size constancy (Ferber & Danckert, 2006;Rode, Michel, Rossetti, Boisson, & Vallar, 2006;Wyke, 1960). In such classic neuropsychological reports lesion location is roughly estimated and deficits are based on bedside clinical evaluations.More recently, a number of fMRI studies have investigated stereopsis and have identified a number of dorsal stream areas associated with stereopsis, such as retinotopic area V3A and caudal intraparietal sulcus (Backus, Fleet, Parker, and Heeger, 2001;Brouwer, van Ee, and Schwarzbach, 2005;Inui et al., 2000;Iwami et al., 2002;Kwee, Fujii, Matsuzawa, and Nakada, 1999;Naganuma et al., 2005;Neri, Bridge, and Heeger, 2004;Nishida et al., 2001;Rutschmann and Greenlee, 2004;Rutschmann...

Towards a unified perspective of object shape and motion processing in human dorsal cortex

“…The finding that occipito-parietal areas may be the locus of egocentric distance, size, and 3-D shape information integration is supported by a report of a patient with bilateral occipito-parietal damage (Berryhill, Fendrich, & Olson, 2009). This patient was unable to use either stereo or monocular cues such as occlusion, shading and linear perspective to recover the shapes of objects.…”

“…In addition to early visual areas, several regions of monkey parietal cortex, including LIP and AIP, are sensitive to disparity information and subtle changes in the apparent depth of a stimulus (Gonzalez & Perez, 1998; Janssen, Srivasta, Ombelet, & Orban, 2008; Theys et al, 2015). In humans, depth processing is localized to a number of areas including V3A (Backus, Fleet, Parker, & Heeger, 2001; Berryhill & Olson, 2009; Tsao, Conway, et al, 2003; Tsao, Vanduffel, et al, 2003), V7/IPS0 (Brouwer, van Ee, & Schwarzbach, 2005), and other areas along the caudal intraparietal sulcus (Rutschmann & Greenlee, 2004). It should perhaps not be surprising that the same areas that are sensitive to 3-D shape information in both monkeys and humans as discussed in the previous section are also implicated in the processing of relative 3-D information.…”

Deconstructing Events: The Neural Bases for Space, Time, and Causality

“…There were several main findings. First, SPACE trials recruited primarily bilateral frontal and occipitoparietal networks; areas traditionally associated with various forms of visuospatial processing (Berryhill, Fendrich, & Olson, 2009; Bisiach, 1999; Damasio et al, 2001; Emmorey et al, 2002; Haxby et al, 1991; Noordzij et al, 2008; Vallar & Perani, 1986; Wu, Morganti, & Chatterjee, 2008; Wu, Waller, & Chatterjee, 2007). Second, CAUSALITY trials were associated with bilateral frontal activations and greater activity in the left middle temporal gyrus; areas previously found to underlie causal thinking and thematic role assignment, respectively (Fonlupt, 2003; Satpute et al, 2005; Wu et al, 2007).…”

Dislocation, Not Dissociation: The Neuroanatomical Argument Against Visual Experience Driving Motor Action

“…The same points I make about hemispatial neglect below also apply to simultagnosia, and so, for sake of economy, I omit further discussion of it. 23 Putting it another way, while IPL might be some kind of 'neural correlate of consciousness' (a term coined by Crick and Koch [1990]), it is not what Chalmers would refer to as a content neural correlate of consciousness, 'a minimal neural representational system … such that representation of a content in [it] is sufficient … [given certain background conditions] for representation of that content in consciousness' (2000, p. 31). in the ability to estimate object distance (Berryhill, Fendrich and Olson, 2009). Notably, experience of object distance was among the types of visual experience that we classified above as potentially motorically efficacious.…”

“…6), who argues that one or both of these areas produce conscious representations of object distance. Wu supports this claim by appealing to an imaging study in which V3A and V7 showed increased activity when subjects were asked to report on the egocentric distance of objects (Committeri et al ., ), and by describing a case where damage to these areas produced deficits in the ability to estimate object distance (Berryhill, Fendrich and Olson, ). Notably, experience of object distance was among the types of visual experience that we classified above as potentially motorically efficacious.…”