Semantic Expectation Effects on Object Detection: Using Figure Assignment to Elucidate Mechanisms

Overview

Journal Vision (Basel)

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2022 Mar 24

PMID 35324604

Authors

Rachel M Skocypec

Mary A Peterson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Recent evidence suggesting that object detection is improved following valid rather than invalid labels implies that semantics influence object detection. It is not clear, however, whether the results index object detection or feature detection. Further, because control conditions were absent and labels and objects were repeated multiple times, the mechanisms are unknown. We assessed object detection via figure assignment, whereby objects are segmented from backgrounds. Masked bipartite displays depicting a portion of a mono-oriented object (a familiar configuration) on one side of a central border were shown once only for 90 or 100 ms. Familiar configuration is a figural prior. Accurate detection was indexed by reports of an object on the familiar configuration side of the border. Compared to control experiments without labels, valid labels improved accuracy and reduced response times (RTs) more for upright than inverted objects (Studies 1 and 2). Invalid labels denoting different superordinate-level objects (DSC; Study 1) or same superordinate-level objects (SSC; Study 2) reduced accuracy for upright displays only. Orientation dependency indicates that effects are mediated by activated object representations rather than features which are invariant over orientation. Following invalid SSC labels (Study 2), accurate detection RTs were longer than control for both orientations, implicating conflict between semantic representations that had to be resolved before object detection. These results demonstrate that object detection is not just affected by semantics, it entails semantics.

References

Brysbaert M, New B . Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):977-90. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977. View

Gayet S, Van der Stigchel S, Paffen C . Breaking continuous flash suppression: competing for consciousness on the pre-semantic battlefield. Front Psychol. 2014; 5:460. PMC: 4033185. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00460. View

Ashbridge E, Perrett D, Oram M, Jellema T . Effect of image orientation and size on object recognition: responses of single units in the macaque monkey temporal cortex. Cogn Neuropsychol. 2010; 17(1):13-34. DOI: 10.1080/026432900380463. View

Forster K, Forster J . DMDX: a windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2003; 35(1):116-24. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195503. View

Kok P, Jehee J, de Lange F . Less is more: expectation sharpens representations in the primary visual cortex. Neuron. 2012; 75(2):265-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.034. View

Jolicoeur P . The time to name disoriented natural objects. Mem Cognit. 1985; 13(4):289-303. DOI: 10.3758/bf03202498. View

Carlson T, Schrater P, He S . Patterns of activity in the categorical representations of objects. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003; 15(5):704-17. DOI: 10.1162/089892903322307429. View

Lupyan G, Abdel Rahman R, Boroditsky L, Clark A . Effects of Language on Visual Perception. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020; 24(11):930-944. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.08.005. View

Lupyan G, Ward E . Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110(35):14196-201. PMC: 3761589. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1303312110. View

10.

Brooks J, Palmer S . Cue competition affects temporal dynamics of edge-assignment in human visual cortex. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010; 23(3):631-44. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21433. View

11.

Tyler L, Chiu S, Zhuang J, Randall B, Devereux B, Wright P . Objects and categories: feature statistics and object processing in the ventral stream. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 25(10):1723-35. PMC: 3767967. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00419. View

12.

Huth A, Nishimoto S, Vu A, Gallant J . A continuous semantic space describes the representation of thousands of object and action categories across the human brain. Neuron. 2012; 76(6):1210-24. PMC: 3556488. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.014. View

13.

Oram M . Integrating neuronal coding into cognitive models: predicting reaction time distributions. Network. 2006; 16(4):377-400. DOI: 10.1080/09548980500445039. View

14.

Louca M, Short M . The effect of one night's sleep deprivation on adolescent neurobehavioral performance. Sleep. 2014; 37(11):1799-807. PMC: 4196063. DOI: 10.5665/sleep.4174. View

15.

Liuzzi A, Bruffaerts R, Vandenberghe R . The medial temporal written word processing system. Cortex. 2019; 119:287-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2019.05.002. View

16.

Peterson M, De Gelder B, Rapcsak S, Gerhardstein P . Object memory effects on figure assignment: conscious object recognition is not necessary or sufficient. Vision Res. 2000; 40(10-12):1549-67. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(00)00053-5. View

17.

Schendan H, Kutas M . Neurophysiological evidence for the time course of activation of global shape, part, and local contour representations during visual object categorization and memory. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007; 19(5):734-49. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.734. View

18.

Cacciamani L, Mojica A, Sanguinetti J, Peterson M . Semantic access occurs outside of awareness for the ground side of a figure. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014; 76(8):2531-47. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0743-y. View

19.

Peterson M, Harvey E, Weidenbacher H . Shape recognition contributions to figure-ground reversal: which route counts?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991; 17(4):1075-89. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.17.4.1075. View

20.

Stein T, Peelen M . Content-specific expectations enhance stimulus detectability by increasing perceptual sensitivity. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015; 144(6):1089-104. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000109. View