scholarly journals Editorial: Where the rubber meets the road in visual perception: High temporal‐precision brain signals to top‐down and bottom‐up influences on perceptual resolution

2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (11) ◽  
pp. 4403-4410
Author(s):  
Sumie Leung ◽  
Patrick Johnston ◽  
Alan Pegna ◽  
Aina Puce ◽  
Lisa Scott
2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (8) ◽  
pp. 1735-1747 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. van Ommen ◽  
M. van Beilen ◽  
F. W. Cornelissen ◽  
H. G. O. M. Smid ◽  
H. Knegtering ◽  
...  

BackgroundLittle is known about visual hallucinations (VH) in psychosis. We investigated the prevalence and the role of bottom-up and top-down processing in VH. The prevailing view is that VH are probably related to altered top-down processing, rather than to distorted bottom-up processing. Conversely, VH in Parkinson's disease are associated with impaired visual perception and attention, as proposed by the Perception and Attention Deficit (PAD) model. Auditory hallucinations (AH) in psychosis, however, are thought to be related to increased attention.MethodOur retrospective database study included 1119 patients with non-affective psychosis and 586 controls. The Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences established the VH rate. Scores on visual perception tests [Degraded Facial Affect Recognition (DFAR), Benton Facial Recognition Task] and attention tests [Response Set-shifting Task, Continuous Performance Test-HQ (CPT-HQ)] were compared between 75 VH patients, 706 non-VH patients and 485 non-VH controls.ResultsThe lifetime VH rate was 37%. The patient groups performed similarly on cognitive tasks; both groups showed worse perception (DFAR) than controls. Non-VH patients showed worse attention (CPT-HQ) than controls, whereas VH patients did not perform differently.ConclusionsWe did not find significant VH-related impairments in bottom-up processing or direct top-down alterations. However, the results suggest a relatively spared attentional performance in VH patients, whereas face perception and processing speed were equally impaired in both patient groups relative to controls. This would match better with the increased attention hypothesis than with the PAD model. Our finding that VH frequently co-occur with AH may support an increased attention-induced ‘hallucination proneness’.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Dijkstra ◽  
Sander Erik Bosch ◽  
Marcel van Gerven

For decades, the extent to which visual imagery relies on similar neural mechanisms as visual perception has been a topic of debate. Here, we review recent neuroimaging studies comparing these two forms of visual experience. Their results suggest that there is large overlap in neural processing during perception and imagery: neural representations of imagined and perceived stimuli are similar in visual, parietal and frontal cortex. Furthermore, perception and imagery seem to rely on similar top-down connectivity. The most prominent difference is the absence of bottom-up processing during imagery. These findings fit well with the idea that imagery and perception rely on similar emulation or prediction processes.


1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 941-947 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Taddei-Ferretti ◽  
C. Musio ◽  
S. Santillo
Keyword(s):  
Top Down ◽  

Author(s):  
Edyta Sasin ◽  
Daryl Fougnie

AbstractDoes the strength of representations in long-term memory (LTM) depend on which type of attention is engaged? We tested participants’ memory for objects seen during visual search. We compared implicit memory for two types of objects—related-context nontargets that grabbed attention because they matched the target defining feature (i.e., color; top-down attention) and salient distractors that captured attention only because they were perceptually distracting (bottom-up attention). In Experiment 1, the salient distractor flickered, while in Experiment 2, the luminance of the salient distractor was alternated. Critically, salient and related-context nontargets produced equivalent attentional capture, yet related-context nontargets were remembered far better than salient distractors (and salient distractors were not remembered better than unrelated distractors). These results suggest that LTM depends not only on the amount of attention but also on the type of attention. Specifically, top-down attention is more effective in promoting the formation of memory traces than bottom-up attention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document