Article

The neural basis of visual object learning.

Laboratory of Biological Psychology, University of Leuven (K.U.Leuven), Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. <>
Trends in Cognitive Sciences (Impact Factor: 16.01). 11/2009; 14(1):22-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.11.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Object vision in human and nonhuman primates is often cited as a primary example of adult plasticity in neural information processing. It has been hypothesized that visual experience leads to single neurons in the monkey brain with strong selectivity for complex objects, and to regions in the human brain with a preference for particular categories of highly familiar objects. This view suggests that adult visual experience causes dramatic local changes in the response properties of high-level visual cortex. Here, we review the current neurophysiological and neuroimaging evidence and find that the available data support a different conclusion: adult visual experience introduces moderate, relatively distributed effects that modulate a pre-existing, rich and flexible set of neural object representations.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
89 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We have characterized selectivity and sparseness in anterior inferotemporal cortex, using a large data set. Responses were collected from 674 monkey inferotemporal cells, each stimulated by 806 object photographs. This 806 × 674 matrix was examined in two ways: columnwise, looking at responses of a single neuron to all images (single-neuron selectivity), and rowwise, looking at the responses of all neurons caused by a single image (population sparseness). Selectivity and sparseness were measured as kurtosis of probability distributions. Population sparseness exceeded single-neuron selectivity, with specific values dependent on the size of the data sample. This difference was principally caused by inclusion, within the population, of neurons with a variety of dynamic ranges (standard deviations of responses over all images). Statistics of large responses were examined by quantifying how quickly the upper tail of the probability distribution decreased (tail heaviness). This analysis demonstrated that population responses had heavier tails than single-neuron responses, consistent with the difference between sparseness and selectivity measurements. Population responses with spontaneous activity subtracted had the heaviest tails, following a power law. The very light tails of single-neuron responses indicate that the critical feature for each neuron is simple enough to have a high probability of occurring within a limited stimulus set. Heavy tails of population responses indicate that there are a large number of different critical features to which different neurons are tuned. These results are inconsistent with some structural models of object recognition that posit that objects are decomposed into a small number of standard features.
    Journal of Neurophysiology 05/2011; 106(3):1097-117. · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Visual perceptual learning (PL) and perceptual expertise (PE) traditionally lead to different training effects and recruit different brain areas, but reasons for these differences are largely unknown. Here, we tested how the learning history influences visual object representations. Two groups were trained with tasks typically used in PL or PE studies, with the same novel objects, training duration and parafoveal stimulus presentation. We observed qualitatively different changes in the cortical representations of these objects following PL and PE training, replicating typical training effects in each field. These effects were also modulated by testing tasks, suggesting that experience interacts with attentional set and that the choice of testing tasks critically determines the pattern of training effects one can observe after a short-term visual training. Experience appears sufficient to account for prior differences in the neural locus of learning between PL and PE. The nature of the experience with an object's category can determine its representation in the visual system. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Experimental Psychology General 04/2012; · 3.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Training programs aimed to alleviate or improve auditory-cognitive abilities have either experienced mixed success or remain to be fully validated. The limited benefits of such regimens are largely attributable to our weak understanding of (i) how (and which) interventions provide the most robust and long lasting improvements to cognitive and perceptual abilities and (ii) how the neural mechanisms which underlie such abilities are positively modified by certain activities and experience. Recent studies indicate that music training provides robust, long-lasting biological benefits to auditory function. Importantly, the behavioral advantages conferred by musical experience extend beyond simple enhancements to perceptual abilities and even impact non-auditory functions necessary for higher-order aspects of cognition (e.g., working memory, intelligence). Collectively, preliminary findings indicate that alternative forms of arts engagement (e.g., visual arts training) may not yield such widespread enhancements, suggesting that music expertise uniquely taps and refines a hierarchy of brain networks subserving a variety of auditory as well as domain-general cognitive mechanisms. We infer that transfer from specific music experience to broad cognitive benefit might be mediated by the degree to which a listener's musical training tunes lower- (e.g., perceptual) and higher-order executive functions, and the coordination between these processes. Ultimately, understanding the broad impact of music on the brain will not only provide a more holistic picture of auditory processing and plasticity, but may help inform and tailor remediation and training programs designed to improve perceptual and cognitive benefits in human listeners.
    Hearing research 09/2013; · 2.18 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
1 Download
Available from