Linking perceptual learning with identical stimuli to imagery perceptual learning

Abstract

Perceptual learning is usually thought to be exclusively driven by the stimuli presented during training (and the underlying synaptic learning rules). In some way, we are slaves of our visual experiences. However, learning can occur even when no stimuli are presented at all. For example, Gabor contrast detection improves when only a blank screen is presented and observers are asked to imagine Gabor patches. Likewise, performance improves when observers are asked to imagine the nonexisting central line of a bisection stimulus to be offset either to the right or left. Hence, performance can improve without stimulus presentation. As shown in the auditory domain, performance can also improve when the very same stimulus is presented in all learning trials and observers were asked to discriminate differences which do not exist (observers were not told about the set up). Classic models of perceptual learning cannot handle these situations since they need proper stimulus presentation, i.e., variance in the stimuli, such as a left versus right offset in the bisection stimulus. Here, we show that perceptual learning with identical stimuli occurs in the visual domain, too. Second, we linked the two paradigms by telling observers that only the very same bisection stimulus was presented in all trials and asked them to imagine the central line to be offset either to the left or right. As in imagery learning, performance improved.

Stimulus blanking reveals contrast-dependent transsaccadic feature transfer

“…In a similar manner, high-level processes can generate low-level percepts through visual imagery. Visual imagery can lead to the formation of phantom-like percepts that can bias future perception 39 and even lead to visual perceptual learning 40 . Besides visual imagery, phantom percepts such as observed in the filling-in phenomenon were shown to generate neural activity in the early visual cortex 41 .…”

Spatiotopic and saccade-specific transsaccadic memory for object detail

“…Similar processes occur in mental imagery, where high-level processes generate activations in low-level neurons, giving rise to phantom-like percepts ( Pearson, Clifford, & Tong, 2008 ). Hence, visual imagery can lead to the formation of phantom-like percepts that can bias future perception ( Pearson et al, 2008 ; Sterzer, Frith, & Petrovic, 2010 ) and even replace the real visual stimulus and lead to visual perceptual learning ( Grzeczkowski, Tartaglia, Mast, & Herzog, 2015 ; Shibata, Watanabe, Sasaki, & Kawato, 2011 ; Tartaglia, Bamert, Mast, & Herzog, 2009 ). Accordingly, it was shown that stimulus-driven and imagery-driven representations have overlapping neural topography and induce similar activations in early visual areas that are retinotopically organized and feature specific ( Naselaris, Olman, Stansbury, Ugurbil, & Gallant, 2015 ; Slotnick, Thompson, & Kosslyn, 2005 ).…”

Neurofunctional Symmetries and Asymmetries during Voluntary out-of- and within-Body Vivid Imagery Concurrent with Orienting Attention and Visuospatial Detection

“…It has been hypothesized that the pathways corresponding to both types of codes co-evolved to predict how real objects behave in the immediate future, to avoid attackers or catch prey [92][93][94], and to select and guide the most adaptive among many available actions [13,[95][96][97]. Along this line of research, evidence supporting the claim that imagery has a facilitatory role in prediction is provided by the findings that, similar to the effects of perceptual learning and practice, that imagery increases sensitivity in hyperacuity (i.e., gap detection) when the same stimulus is visualized repeatedly over a block of trials [98,99]. This further validates the finding that visual imagery can shape low-level sensory representation.…”