P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual Cortex
If the spatial validity of prior information is varied systematically, does human behavioral performance improve in a graded fashion, and if so, does visual cortex represent the probability directly? Cortical activity was measured with fMRI while subjects performed a contrast-discrimination task in...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2012-10-01
|
Series: | i-Perception |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1068/if668 |
id |
doaj-abe2d7b9cba346cba1fe05592782407f |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-abe2d7b9cba346cba1fe05592782407f2020-11-25T04:01:10ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952012-10-01310.1068/if66810.1068_if668P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual CortexYuko Hara0Justin L GardnerRIKEN Brain Science Institute, JapanIf the spatial validity of prior information is varied systematically, does human behavioral performance improve in a graded fashion, and if so, does visual cortex represent the probability directly? Cortical activity was measured with fMRI while subjects performed a contrast-discrimination task in which the spatial validity of a prior cue for target location was systematically varied. Subjects viewed four sinusoidal gratings (randomized contrasts of 12.5, 25, and 50%) shown in discrete visual quadrants presented twice. The contrast in one location (target) was incremented in one of the two presentations. Subjects reported with a button press which presentation contained the greater contrast. The target grating was signaled in advance by a cue which varied in spatial validity; at trial onset, small lines pointed to four, two, or one of the possible target locations, thus indicating the target with 25, 50, or 100% probability. Behavioral performance was 2.1 and 3.3 times better in the 100% probability condition than the 50% and 25%, respectively ( p < .001, ANOVA). Unlike behavioral performance, cortical activity in early visual areas showed the same increase in response amplitude for cued versus uncued stimuli for both 100% and 50% probability (V1-V4, V3A all p < .18, Student's t-test, 25% had no uncued condition). How could behavioral performance improve in a graded fashion if cortical activity showed the same effect for different probabilities? A model of efficient selection in which V1 responses were pooled according to their magnitude rather than as a simple average explained the observations (AIC difference = −15).https://doi.org/10.1068/if668 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Yuko Hara Justin L Gardner |
spellingShingle |
Yuko Hara Justin L Gardner P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual Cortex i-Perception |
author_facet |
Yuko Hara Justin L Gardner |
author_sort |
Yuko Hara |
title |
P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual Cortex |
title_short |
P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual Cortex |
title_full |
P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual Cortex |
title_fullStr |
P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual Cortex |
title_full_unstemmed |
P2-7: Encoding of Graded Changes in Validity of Spatial Priors in Human Visual Cortex |
title_sort |
p2-7: encoding of graded changes in validity of spatial priors in human visual cortex |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
series |
i-Perception |
issn |
2041-6695 |
publishDate |
2012-10-01 |
description |
If the spatial validity of prior information is varied systematically, does human behavioral performance improve in a graded fashion, and if so, does visual cortex represent the probability directly? Cortical activity was measured with fMRI while subjects performed a contrast-discrimination task in which the spatial validity of a prior cue for target location was systematically varied. Subjects viewed four sinusoidal gratings (randomized contrasts of 12.5, 25, and 50%) shown in discrete visual quadrants presented twice. The contrast in one location (target) was incremented in one of the two presentations. Subjects reported with a button press which presentation contained the greater contrast. The target grating was signaled in advance by a cue which varied in spatial validity; at trial onset, small lines pointed to four, two, or one of the possible target locations, thus indicating the target with 25, 50, or 100% probability. Behavioral performance was 2.1 and 3.3 times better in the 100% probability condition than the 50% and 25%, respectively ( p < .001, ANOVA). Unlike behavioral performance, cortical activity in early visual areas showed the same increase in response amplitude for cued versus uncued stimuli for both 100% and 50% probability (V1-V4, V3A all p < .18, Student's t-test, 25% had no uncued condition). How could behavioral performance improve in a graded fashion if cortical activity showed the same effect for different probabilities? A model of efficient selection in which V1 responses were pooled according to their magnitude rather than as a simple average explained the observations (AIC difference = −15). |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1068/if668 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT yukohara p27encodingofgradedchangesinvalidityofspatialpriorsinhumanvisualcortex AT justinlgardner p27encodingofgradedchangesinvalidityofspatialpriorsinhumanvisualcortex |
_version_ |
1724447400979857408 |