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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yuko Hara, Justin L Gardner
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