scholarly journals Reentrant Processing in Intuitive Perception

PLoS ONE ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. e9523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phan Luu ◽  
Alexandra Geyer ◽  
Cali Fidopiastis ◽  
Gwendolyn Campbell ◽  
Tracey Wheeler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 1242-1247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Dux ◽  
Troy A.W. Visser ◽  
Stephanie C. Goodhew ◽  
Ottmar V. Lipp

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (9) ◽  
pp. 1488-1497 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Fahrenfort ◽  
H. S. Scholte ◽  
V. A. F. Lamme

In masking, a stimulus is rendered invisible through the presentation of a second stimulus shortly after the first. Over the years, authors have typically explained masking by postulating some early disruption process. In these feedforward-type explanations, the mask somehow “catches up” with the target stimulus, disrupting its processing either through lateral or interchannel inhibition. However, studies from recent years indicate that visual perception—and most notably visual awareness itself—may depend strongly on cortico-cortical feedback connections from higher to lower visual areas. This has led some researchers to propose that masking derives its effectiveness from selectively interrupting these reentrant processes. In this experiment, we used electroencephalogram measurements to determine what happens in the human visual cortex during detection of a texture-defined square under nonmasked (seen) and masked (unseen) conditions. Electro-encephalogram derivatives that are typically associated with reentrant processing turn out to be absent in the masked condition. Moreover, extrastriate visual areas are still activated early on by both seen and unseen stimuli, as shown by scalp surface Laplacian current source-density maps. This conclusively shows that feedforward processing is preserved, even when subject performance is at chance as determined by objective measures. From these results, we conclude that masking derives its effectiveness, at least partly, from disrupting reentrant processing, thereby interfering with the neural mechanisms of figure-ground segmentation and visual awareness itself.


2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. S. Steelman-Allen ◽  
J. S. McCarley ◽  
J. R. W. Mounts

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Donohue ◽  
Mircea A. Schoenfeld ◽  
Jens-Max Hopf

AbstractVisual search has been commonly used to study the neural correlates of attentional allocation in space. Recent electrophysiological research has disentangled distractor processing from target processing, showing that these mechanisms appear to operate in parallel and show electric fields of opposite polarity. Nevertheless, the localization and exact nature of this activity is unknown. Here, using MEG in humans, we provide a spatiotemporal characterization of target and distractor processing in visual cortex. We demonstrate that source activity underlying target- and distractor-processing propagates in parallel as fast and slow sweep from higher to lower hierarchical levels in visual cortex. Importantly, the fast propagating target-related source activity bypasses intermediate levels to go directly to V1, and this V1 activity correlates with behavioral performance. These findings suggest that reentrant processing is important for both selection and attenuation of stimuli, and such processing operates in parallel feedback loops.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Keil ◽  
Daniel Senkowski ◽  
James K Moran

In the flash-lag illusion (FLI), the position of a flash presented ahead of a moving bar is mislocalized, so the flash appears to lag the bar. Currently it is not clear whether this effect is due to early perceptual-related neural processes such as motion extrapolation or reentrant processing, or due to later feedback processing relating to postdiction, i.e. retroactively altered perception. We presented 17 participants with the FLI paradigm while recording EEG. A central flash occurred either 51ms (early) or 16ms (late) before the bar moving from left to right reached the screen center. Participants judged whether the flash appeared to the right (no flash lag illusion) or to the left (flash-lag illusion) of the bar. Using single-trial linear modelling, we examined the influence of timing (early vs. late) and perception (illusion vs. no illusion) on flash-evoked brain responses, and estimated the cortical sources underlying the FLI. Perception of the FLI was associated with a late window (368-452ms) in the ERP, with larger deflections for illusion than no illusion trials, localized to the left fusiform gyrus. An earlier frontal and occipital component (200-276ms) differentiated time-locked early vs. late stimulus presentation. Our results suggest a postdiction-related reconstruction of ambiguous sensory stimulation involving late processes in the occipito-temporal cortex, previously associated with temporal integration phenomena. This indicates that perception of the FLI relies on an interplay between ongoing stimulus encoding of the moving bar and feedback processing of the flash, which takes place at later integration stages.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1230-1230
Author(s):  
T. Achler ◽  
M. Ham ◽  
S. Barr ◽  
J. George ◽  
J. McCarley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 215-215
Author(s):  
K. S. Steelman-Allen ◽  
J. S. McCarley ◽  
J. R. W. Mounts

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 296-296
Author(s):  
P. E. Dux ◽  
T. A. W. Visser ◽  
S. C. Goodhew ◽  
O. V. Lipp

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document