Two distinct modes of sensory processing observed in monkey primary visual cortex (V1)

Supèr, Hans; Spekreijse, H.; Lamme, Victor A. F.

doi:10.1038/85170

Cited by 432 publications

(360 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

318

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Wgure/ground modulation is a global process that depends on the level of awareness in the perception of the stimuli Super et al 2001), an attention task was chosen that does not eliminate the global interactions and does not suppress perceptual awareness. Thus, we used a global dimming task, where the observers were asked to detect instantaneous changes in the luminance of the stimulus at an average rate of 1 per 20 frames.…”

Section: Scanning Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of neural architecture, does the mechanism employ lateral interactions (e.g., Gerrits and Vendrik 1970;Grossberg and Mingolla 1985;Grossberg 1994;Baek and Sajda 2005;Pao et al 1999;Zhaoping 2005), top-down feedback (e.g., Lamme and Roelfsema 2000;Lamme et al 2002;Roelfsema et al 2002;Craft et al 2007) or more sophisticated combinations? In terms of its coding mechanism, do the Wgure/ground conWgurations use border-based coding (e.g., von der Heydt et al 2003Heydt et al , 2005Craft et al 2007) or region-based coding (e.g., Lamme 1995;Zipser et al 1996;Lamme et al 1998;Super et al 2001;Roelfsema et al 2002)?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Occipital network for figure/ground organization

Likova

Tyler

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Abstract To study the cortical mechanism of Wgure/ ground categorization in the human brain, we employed fMRI and the temporal-asynchrony paradigm. This paradigm is able to eliminate any diVerential activation for local stimulus features, and thus to identify only global perceptual interactions. Strong segmentation of the image into diVerent spatial conWgurations was generated solely from temporal asynchronies between zones of homogeneous dynamic noise. The Wgure/ground conWguration was a single geometric Wgure enclosed in a larger surround region. In a control condition, the Wgure/ground organization was eliminated by segmenting the noise Weld into many identical temporal-asynchrony stripes. The manipulation of the type of perceptual organization triggered dramatic reorganization in the cortical activation pattern. The Wgure/ground conWguration generated suppression of the ground representation (limited to early retinotopic visual cortex, V1 and V2) and strong activation in the motion complex hMT+/ V5+; conversely, both responses were abolished when the Wgure/ground organization was eliminated. These results suggest that Wgure/ground processing is mediated by topdown suppression of the ground representation in the earliest visual areas V1/V2 through a signal arising in the motion complex. We propose a model of a recurrent cortical architecture incorporating suppressive feedback that operates in a topographic manner, forming a Wgure/ground categorization network distinct from that for "pure" scene segmentation and thus underlying the perceptual organization of dynamic scenes into cognitively relevant components. Permanent repository link

show abstract

Section: Scanning Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occipital network for figure/ground organization

Likova

Tyler

2008

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, there is substantial evidence to suggest that top-down processes not only play an important role in sensory processing in general but also are crucial for conscious perception, in particular [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] (see also the review articles by Pollen, 83 Lamme and Roelfsema, 84 Bullier, 85 Hochstein and Ahissar, 86 and Meyer 87 ). For example, when subjects perceive apparent motion (as is the case when two dots in different locations are seen in rapid alteration, creating the impression that a single dot is moving from one location to the other), there is V1 activity along the apparent motion trace (where there is no actual visual stimulus), and this activity is induced by top-down signals.…”

Section: Top-down Signals and Conscious Perception: What We Already Knowmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Dendritic Signaling in the Anesthetic Suppression of Consciousness

Meyer

2015

Anesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite considerable progress in the identification of the molecular targets of general anesthetics, it remains unclear how these drugs affect the brain at the systems level to suppress consciousness. According to recent proposals, anesthetics may achieve this feat by interfering with corticocortical topdown processes, that is, by interrupting information flow from association to early sensory cortices. Such a view entails two immediate questions. First, at which anatomical site, and by virtue of which physiological mechanism, do anesthetics interfere with top-down signals? Second, why does a breakdown of top-down signaling cause unconsciousness? While an answer to the first question can be gleaned from emerging neurophysiological evidence on dendritic signaling in cortical pyramidal neurons, a response to the second is offered by increasingly popular theoretical frameworks that place the element of prediction at the heart of conscious perception. Science magazine posed this question in a special section titled "What don't we know?," dedicated to the greatest challenges of contemporary science. 1 "Scientists are chipping away at the drugs' effects on individual neurons," the article reads, "but understanding how they render us unconscious will be a tougher nut to crack." This prediction proved correct: a decade later, we have expanded considerably our knowledge of the molecular targets of general anesthetics, but it remains enigmatic how these drugs affect the brain at the systems level. Why does the potentiation of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors caused by propofol or desflurane cause unconsciousness? How are the brain's computational processes affected by this and other molecular mechanisms of anesthetics, so that patients undergoing surgery cease to experience their surrounds in terms of sight, sound, and touch? Anesthesiologists and cognitive neuroscientists alike have been captivated by these questions and have proposed a number of models in an attempt to answer them, such as Flohr's "information processing theory of anesthesia," 2 Alkire's "thalamic consciousness switch hypothesis," 3-6 Mashour's "cognitive unbinding paradigm," 7,8 John and Prichep's "anesthetic cascade," 9 or Hudetz's "forgotten present." 10,11 We shall return to some of these frameworks in a later section of the article.One recent development is particularly intriguing. Given that the most striking feature of general anesthesia is an interruption of the patient's ability to perceive the environment, it would appear intuitive for anesthetics to interfere primarily with bottom-up information flow along the sensory pathways, that is, with the signals that carry perceptual information from the thalamus to the primary sensory cortices and on to unimodal and multimodal association cortices. However, the very opposite appears to be the case. Several recent studies-carried out in both humans and animals, and using a variety of different anesthetic agents-have investigated differences in directional corticocortical connectivity bet...

show abstract

“…Each time information reaches a successive stage in this hierarchy, this higher level area also starts to sent information back to lower level areas through feedback connections. Single-cell recordings in monkeys (Super, Spekreijse, & Lamme, 2001) and TMS (Pascual-Leone & Walsh, 2001), fMRI (Haynes, Driver, & Rees, 2005), and EEG (Fahrenfort, Scholte, & Lamme, 2007) experiments in humans have revealed that the feedforward sweep probably remains unconscious, whereas recurrent interactions trigger awareness of a stimulus (for reviews, see Dehaene et al, 2006;Lamme, 2006). Interestingly, masking probably disrupts feedback activations but leaves feedforward activations relatively intact (Del Cul, Baillet, & Dehaene, 2007;Fahrenfort et al, 2007;Lamme, Zipser, & Spekreijse, 2002).…”

Section: Underlying Neural Mechanisms Of Conscious Versus Unconsciousmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissociable Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Conscious and Unconscious Control of Behavior

Gaal¹,

Lamme²,

Fahrenfort³

et al. 2011

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Thus, the N2 likely reflects the initiation of inhibitory control, irrespective of conscious awareness. The P3 component was much reduced in amplitude and duration on masked versus unmasked stop trials. These patterns of differences and similarities between conscious and unconscious cognitive control processes are discussed in a framework that differentiates between feedforward and feedback connections in yielding conscious experience.

show abstract

Two distinct modes of sensory processing observed in monkey primary visual cortex (V1)

Cited by 432 publications

References 35 publications

Occipital network for figure/ground organization

Occipital network for figure/ground organization

The Role of Dendritic Signaling in the Anesthetic Suppression of Consciousness

Dissociable Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Conscious and Unconscious Control of Behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About