Literature DB >> 11900745

Neurophysiological evidence for two processing times for visual object identification.

Haline E Schendan1, Marta Kutas.   

Abstract

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded to fragmented pictures of objects that were named correctly or were not to investigate the time course of visual object identification. The first ERP difference distinguishing identified from unidentified pictures estimates the upper limit of the time by which human brain regions have begun to activate long-term memory (LTM) representations specifying the identity of a visual object. Data from 15 young adults indicate that this time varies with the extent to which object parts are recoverable from the visual input, being approximately 200 ms earlier with recoverable than unrecoverable parts. Successful identification is evident by approximately 300 ms when object parts and overall structural configuration are readily recoverable but not until approximately 550 ms when object parts are difficult or impossible to recover (i.e. too poorly specified by the available contours to be recovered). In both cases, successful identification is associated with greater relative positivity. However, unidentified recoverable pictures are associated with an enhanced frontal negativity (N350), linked to object matching operations, not seen for non-recoverable pictures. Taken together, these results implicate two distinct processing sequences in the successful identification of visual objects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11900745     DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(01)00176-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychologia        ISSN: 0028-3932            Impact factor:   3.139


  22 in total

1.  Neuroimaging evidence for object model verification theory: Role of prefrontal control in visual object categorization.

Authors:  Giorgio Ganis; Haline E Schendan; Stephen M Kosslyn
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 6.556

2.  Enactment versus conceptual encoding: equivalent item memory but different source memory.

Authors:  Ava J Senkfor; Cyma Van Petten; Marta Kutas
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2007-12-23       Impact factor: 4.027

3.  Lack of control enhances accurate and inaccurate identification responses to degraded visual objects.

Authors:  Manila Vannucci; Giuliana Mazzoni; Giulia Cartocci
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-06

4.  Sensory and semantic activations evoked by action attributes of manipulable objects: Evidence from ERPs.

Authors:  Chia-Lin Lee; Hsu-Wen Huang; Kara D Federmeier; Laurel J Buxbaum
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-11-26       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Are depictive gestures like pictures? commonalities and differences in semantic processing.

Authors:  Ying Choon Wu; Seana Coulson
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 2.381

6.  Neural Signatures of Learning Novel Object-Scene Associations.

Authors:  Cybelle M Smith; Kara D Federmeier
Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Alive and grasping: stable and rapid semantic access to an object category but not object graspability.

Authors:  Ben D Amsel; Thomas P Urbach; Marta Kutas
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2013-04-06       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Top-down modulation of visual processing and knowledge after 250 ms supports object constancy of category decisions.

Authors:  Haline E Schendan; Giorgio Ganis
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-09-16

9.  See what I mean? An ERP study of the effect of background knowledge on novel object processing.

Authors:  Caterina Gratton; Karen M Evans; Kara D Federmeier
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2009-04

10.  Novel Adjective Processing in Preschool Children: Evidence From Event-Related Brain Potentials.

Authors:  Katelyn L Gerwin; Laurence B Leonard; Jennifer Schumaker; Patricia Deevy; Eileen Haebig; Christine Weber
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 2.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.