David F. Nichols

Decoding of faces and face components in face-sensitive human visual cortex

A great challenge to the field of visual neuroscience is to understand how faces are encoded and represented within the human brain. Here we show evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for spatially distributed processing of the whole face and its components in face-sensitive human visual cortex. We used multi-class linear pattern classifiers constructed with a leave-one-scan-out verification procedure to discriminate brain activation patterns elicited by whole faces, the internal features alone, and the external head outline alone. Furthermore, our results suggest that whole faces are represented disproportionately in the fusiform cortex (FFA) whereas the building blocks of faces are represented disproportionately in occipitotemporal cortex (OFA). Faces and face components may therefore be organized with functional clustering within both the FFA and OFA, but with specialization for face components in the OFA and the whole face in the FFA.

Dynamical vs. judgmental comparison : hysteresis effects in motion perception

Perceptual comparison was investigated by gradually varying the relative length of two apparent motion paths, and independently determining when an initial percept was lost during the course of attribute change and when an alternative percept emerged. Dynamical comparison was indicated by a range of attribute values for which perception was bistable. Within this range, a percept that lost stability was immediately replaced by an alternative percept. Judgmental comparison was indicated by a range of attribute values for which perception was uncertain. When an initial percept was lost, an alternative percept did not immediately emerge because the alternatives being compared could not be distinguished. Differences in the effects of random noise on dynamical vs. judgmental comparison were demonstrated with computational simulations, and implications are discussed for motion energy models and solutions to the motion correspondence problem.

The Line Motion Illusion: The Detection of Counterchanging Edge and Surface Contrast

A version of the line motion illusion (LMI) occurs when one of two adjacent surfaces changes in luminance; a new surface is perceived sliding in front of the initially presented surface. Previous research has implicated high-level mechanisms that can create or modulate LMI motion via feedback to lower-level motion detectors. It is shown here that there also is a non-motion-energy, feedforward basis for LMI motion entailing the detection of counterchange, a spatial pattern of motion-specifying stimulus information that combines changes in edge contrast with oppositely signed changes in background-relative surface contrast. It was concluded that (1) in addition to LMI motion, edge/surface counterchange could be the basis for perceiving continuous object motion, (2) counterchange detection is the likely basis for third-order motion perception (Lu & Sperling, 1995a), and (3) motion energy and counterchange mechanisms could be composed of different arrangements of the same spatial and temporal filters, the former detecting motion at a single location, the latter detecting the motion path between pairs of locations.

The perception of object versus objectless motion

Wertheimer, M. (Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 61:161–265, 1912) classical distinction between beta (object) and phi (objectless) motion is elaborated here in a series of experiments concerning competition between two qualitatively different motion percepts, induced by sequential changes in luminance for two-dimensional geometric objects composed of rectangular surfaces. One of these percepts is of spreading-luminance motion that continuously sweeps across the entire object; it exhibits shape invariance and is perceived most strongly for fast speeds. Significantly for the characterization of phi as objectless motion, the spreading luminance does not involve surface boundaries or any other feature; the percept is driven solely by spatiotemporal changes in luminance. Alternatively, and for relatively slow speeds, a discrete series of edge motions can be perceived in the direction opposite to spreading-luminance motion. Akin to beta motion, the edges appear to move through intermediate positions within the object’s changing surfaces. Significantly for the characterization of beta as object motion, edge motion exhibits shape dependence and is based on the detection of oppositely signed changes in contrast (i.e., counterchange) for features essential to the determination of an object’s shape, the boundaries separating its surfaces. These results are consistent with area MT neurons that differ with respect to speed preference Newsome et al (Journal of Neurophysiology, 55:1340–1351, 1986) and shape dependence Zeki (Journal of Physiology, 236:549–573, 1974).

Effect of transient versus sustained activation on interocular suppression

Switches in perceptual dominance resulting from either binocular rivalry or flash suppression likely involve some mechanism of interocular suppression, although it is unclear from past research whether different mechanisms are involved in the two cases. Using monocular, centrally fixated sinusoidal gratings surrounded by contiguous annuli of rivalrous gratings, suppression of the entire central grating was possible using either technique. However, the magnitude of the suppression was unaffected by the presence of an ipsilateral surround for flash suppression, yet, for binocular rivalry, suppression no longer occurred when the surrounds were fusible. Nevertheless, computational modeling demonstrates that the differences between the techniques may be attributable to the sustained versus transient stimulation of the contralateral surround, with the magnitude of the suppression proportional to the activation of the contralateral surround. Consistent with this, suppression extends over a greater distance at the onset of the contralateral surround than during sustained rivalry. Therefore, it is likely that perceptual dominance in both binocular rivalry and flash suppression is based on the same mechanism of interocular suppression.

Stimulus specificity in spatially-extended interocular suppression.

In typical binocular rivalry demonstrations, disparate images presented in corresponding locations to the two eyes are found to alternate perceptually over time. Alternation in perception can occur even if the images presented to the two eyes do not overlap, if they are sufficiently close in space. This implies a spatial spread in the interocular interaction. The current set of experiments explores how the luminance pattern of a target, in relation to a rivalrous suppressor, affects its susceptibility to suppression. It was found that the susceptibility to suppression of a target pattern was nonlinearly related to the amount of luminance variation along the target in the direction perpendicular to the suppressing stimulus. For instance, there was a strong effect of the orientation of the grating pattern within the target on the total time of suppression, with much more suppression for horizontal gratings than vertical gratings when suppressor bars were oriented vertically, regardless of the luminance pattern within the suppressors. Furthermore, it was shown that the inclusion of a spatial gap between the vertical suppressors and the central portion of the target does more than simply change the spatial relationships, it adds new figural information, such as vertically orientated edges in the targets, that modify the susceptibility to suppression of the target, thereby interfering with measurements of spatial interaction functions. All of the results are consistent with selectively suppressing stimulus information that would interfere with stereoscopic matching to aid the binocular fusion of disparate retinal images.

Position selectivity in face-sensitive visual cortex to facial and nonfacial stimuli: an fMRI study†

Evidence for position sensitivity in object‐selective visual areas has been building. On one hand, most of the relevant studies have utilized stimuli for which the areas are optimally selective and examine small sections of cortex. On the other hand, visual field maps established with nonspecific stimuli have been found in increasingly large areas of visual cortex, though generally not in areas primarily responsive to faces.