Early and late effects of objecthood and spatial frequency on event-related potentials and gamma band activity

BMC Neuroscience

Matthias M Müller³  Jasna Martinovic¹  Matt Craddock² 

[1] School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK;School of Psychology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS9 2JT, UK;Institute of Psychology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, 04109, Germany

关键词: Object recognition;    Gamma band;    Oscillations;    Electroencephalography (EEG);   

Others  :  1135396
DOI  :  10.1186/s12868-015-0144-8

 received in 2014-10-13, accepted in 2015-02-11,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The visual system may process spatial frequency information in a low-to-high, coarse-to-fine sequence. In particular, low and high spatial frequency information may be processed via different pathways during object recognition, with LSF information projected rapidly to frontal areas and HSF processed later in visual ventral areas. In an electroencephalographic study, we examined the time course of information processing for images filtered to contain different ranges of spatial frequencies. Participants viewed either high spatial frequency (HSF), low spatial frequency (LSF), or unfiltered, broadband (BB) images of objects or non-object textures, classifying them as showing either man-made or natural objects, or non-objects. Event-related potentials (ERPs) and evoked and total gamma band activity (eGBA and tGBA) recorded using the electroencephalogram were compared for object and non-object images across the different spatial frequency ranges.

Results

The visual P1 showed independent modulations by object and spatial frequency, while for the N1 these factors interacted. The P1 showed more positive amplitudes for objects than non-objects, and more positive amplitudes for BB than for HSF images, which in turn evoked more positive amplitudes than LSF images. The peak-to-peak N1 showed that the N1 was much reduced for BB non-objects relative to all other images, while HSF and LSF non-objects still elicited as negative an N1 as objects. In contrast, eGBA was influenced by spatial frequency and not objecthood, while tGBA showed a stronger response to objects than non-objects.

Conclusions

Different pathways are involved in the processing of low and high spatial frequencies during object recognition, as reflected in interactions between objecthood and spatial frequency in the visual N1 component. Total gamma band seems to be related to a late, probably high-level representational process.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Craddock et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bar M: A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. J Cogn Neurosci 2003, 15:600-9.
• [2]Bullier J: Integrated model of visual processing. Brain Res Rev 2001, 36:96-107.
• [3]Hegdé J: Time course of visual perception: coarse-to-fine processing and beyond. Prog Neurobiol 2008, 84:405-39.
• [4]Bar M, Kassam KS, Ghuman AS, Boshyan J, Schmid AM, Dale AM, et al.: Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2006, 103:449-54.
• [5]Badcock JC, Whitworth FA, Badcock DR, Lovegrove WJ: Low-frequency filtering and the processing of local - global stimuli. Perception 1990, 19:617-29.
• [6]Hughes HC, Fendrich R, Reuter-Lorenz PA: Global versus local processing in the absence of low spatial frequencies. J Cogn Neurosci 1990, 2:272-82.
• [7]Navon D: Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cogn Psychol 1977, 9:353-83.
• [8]Marr D: Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco; 1982.
• [9]Collin CA, McMullen PA: Subordinate-level categorization relies on high spatial frequencies to a greater degree than basic-level categorization. Percept Psychophys 2005, 67:354-64.
• [10]Pourtois G, Dan ES, Grandjean D, Sander D, Vuilleumier P: Enhanced extrastriate visual response to bandpass spatial frequency filtered fearful faces: time course and topographic evoked-potentials mapping. Hum Brain Mapp 2005, 26:65-79.
• [11]Nakashima T, Kaneko K, Goto Y, Abe T, Mitsudo T, Ogata K, et al.: Early ERP components differentially extract facial features: evidence for spatial frequency-and-contrast detectors. Neurosci Res 2008, 62:225-35.
• [12]Craddock M, Martinovic J, Müller MM: Task and spatial frequency modulations of object processing: an EEG study. PLoS One 2013, 8:e70293.
• [13]Tallon-Baudry C, Bertrand O: Oscillatory gamma activity in humans and its role in object representation. Trends Cogn Sci 1999, 3:151-62.
• [14]Martinovic J, Busch NA: High frequency oscillations as a correlate of visual perception. Int J Psychophysiol 2011, 79:32-8.
• [15]Martinovic J, Gruber T, Müller MM: Coding of visual object features and feature conjunctions in the human brain. PLoS One 2008, 3:e3781.
• [16]Busch NA, Debener S, Kranczioch C, Engel AK, Herrmann CS: Size matters: effects of stimulus size, duration and eccentricity on the visual gamma-band response. Clin Neurophysiol 2004, 115:1810-20.
• [17]Gruber T, Müller MM: Effects of picture repetition on induced gamma band responses, evoked potentials, and phase synchrony in the human EEG. Cogn Brain Res 2002, 13:377-92.
• [18]Gruber T, Müller MM: Oscillatory brain activity dissociates between associative stimulus content in a repetition priming task in the human EEG. Cereb Cortex 2005, 15:109-16.
• [19]Martinovic J, Gruber T, Müller MM: Induced gamma band responses predict recognition delays during object identification. J Cogn Neurosci 2007, 19:921-34.
• [20]Martinovic J, Gruber T, Ohla K, Müller MM: Induced gamma-band activity elicited by visual representation of unattended objects. J Cogn Neurosci 2009, 21:42-57.
• [21]Fründ I, Busch NA, Körner U, Schadow J, Herrmann CS: EEG oscillations in the gamma and alpha range respond differently to spatial frequency. Vision Res 2007, 47:2086-98.
• [22]Busch NA, Herrmann CS, Müller MM, Lenz D, Gruber T: A cross-laboratory study of event-related gamma activity in a standard object recognition paradigm. Neuroimage 2006, 33:1169-77.
• [23]Yuval-Greenberg S, Tomer O, Keren AS, Nelken I, Deouell LY: Transient induced gamma-band response in EEG as a manifestation of miniature saccades. Neuron 2008, 58:429-41.
• [24]Hassler U, Barreto NT, Gruber T: Induced gamma band responses in human EEG after the control of miniature saccadic artifacts. Neuroimage 2011, 57:1411-21.
• [25]Keren AS, Yuval-Greenberg S, Deouell LY: Saccadic spike potentials in gamma-band EEG: characterization, detection and suppression. Neuroimage 2010, 49:2248-63.
• [26]Adjamian P, Holliday IE, Barnes GR, Hillebrand A, Hadjipapas A, Singh KD: Induced visual illusions and gamma oscillations in human primary visual cortex. Eur J Neurosci 2004, 20:587-92.
• [27]Hadjipapas A, Adjamian P, Swettenham JB, Holliday IE, Barnes GR: Stimuli of varying spatial scale induce gamma activity with distinct temporal characteristics in human visual cortex. Neuroimage 2007, 35:518-30.
• [28]Fintzi AR, Mahon BZ: A bimodal tuning curve for spatial frequency across left and right human orbital frontal cortex during object recognition. Cereb Cortex 2013, 24(5):1311-8.
• [29]Truccolo WA, Ding M, Knuth KH, Nakamura R, Bressler SL: Trial-to-trial variability of cortical evoked responses: implications for the analysis of functional connectivity. Clin Neurophysiol 2002, 113:206-26.
• [30]Olejnik S, Algina J: Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychol Methods 2003, 8:434-47.
• [31]Jasper H: The ten twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1958, 10:371-5.
• [32]Metting van Rijn A, Peper A, Grimbergen C: High-quality recording of bioelectric events. Med Biol Eng Comput 1990, 28:389-97.
• [33]MettingvanRijn A, Peper A, Grimbergen C: High-quality recording of bioelectric events. Med Biol Eng Comput 1991, 29:433-40.
• [34]Delorme A, Makeig S: EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 2004, 134:9-21.
• [35]Nolan H, Whelan R, Reilly RB: FASTER: fully automated statistical thresholding for EEG artifact rejection. J Neurosci Methods 2010, 192:152-62.
• [36]Goffaux V, Gauthier I, Rossion B: Spatial scale contribution to early visual differences between face and object processing. Cogn Brain Res 2003, 16:416-24.
• [37]Itier RJ, Taylor MJ: N170 or N1? Spatiotemporal differences between object and face processing using ERPs. Cereb Cortex 2004, 14:132-42.
• [38]Rossion B, Joyce CA, Cottrell GW, Tarr MJ: Early lateralization and orientation tuning for face, word, and object processing in the visual cortex. Neuroimage 2003, 20:1609-24.
• [39]Rousselet GA, Pernet CR: Quantifying the time course of visual object processing using ERPs: it’s time to up the game. Front Psychol 2011, 2:107.
• [40]Vanrullen R: Four common conceptual fallacies in mapping the time course of recognition. Front Psychol 2011, 2:365.
• [41]Oostenveld R, Fries P, Maris E, Schoffelen J-M: FieldTrip: open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Intell Neurosci 2011, 2011:1:1-1:9.
• [42]Mitra PP, Pesaran B: Analysis of dynamic brain imaging data. Biophys J 1999, 76:691-708.
• [43]Schendan HE, Lucia LC: Object-sensitive activity reflects earlier perceptual and later cognitive processing of visual objects between 95 and 500 ms. Brain Res 2010, 1329:124-41.
• [44]De Cesarei A, Mastria S, Codispoti M: Early spatial frequency processing of natural images: an ERP study. PLoS One 2013, 8:e65103.
• [45]Goffaux V, Jemel B, Jacques C, Rossion B, Schyns P: ERP evidence for task modulations on face perceptual processing at different spatial scales. Cognit Sci 2003, 27:313-25.
• [46]Vogel EK, Luck SJ: The visual N1 component as an index of a discrimination process. Psychophysiology 2000, 37:190-203.
• [47]Herrmann CS, Munk MHJ, Engel AK: Cognitive functions of gamma-band activity: memory match and utilization. Trends Cogn Sci 2004, 8:347-55.
• [48]Hübner R: The effect of spatial frequency on global precedence and hemispheric differences. Percept Psychophys 1997, 59:187-201.
• [49]Kauffmann L, Ramanoel S, Peyrin C. The neural bases of spatial frequency processing during scene perception. Front Integr Neurosci 2014;8.
• [50]Kitterle FL, Hellige JB, Christman S: Visual hemispheric asymmetries depend on which spatial frequencies are task relevant. Brain Cogn 1992, 20:308-14.
• [51]Peyrin C, Chauvin A, Chokron S, Marendaz C: Hemispheric specialization for spatial frequency processing in the analysis of natural scenes. Brain Cogn 2003, 53:278-82.
• [52]Peyrin C, Mermillod M, Chokron S, Marendaz C: Effect of temporal constraints on hemispheric asymmetries during spatial frequency processing. Brain Cogn 2006, 62:214-20.
• [53]Rebaï M, Bernard C, Lannou J, Jouen F: Spatial frequency and right hemisphere: an electrophysiological investigation. Brain Cogn 1998, 36:21-9.