Literature DB >> 29382711

Differential Sampling of Visual Space in Ventral and Dorsal Early Visual Cortex.

Edward H Silson1, Richard C Reynolds2, Dwight J Kravitz3, Chris I Baker4.   

Abstract

A fundamental feature of cortical visual processing is the separation of visual processing for the upper and lower visual fields. In early visual cortex (EVC), the upper visual field is processed ventrally, with the lower visual field processed dorsally. This distinction persists into several category-selective regions of occipitotemporal cortex, with ventral and lateral scene-, face-, and object-selective regions biased for the upper and lower visual fields, respectively. Here, using an elliptical population receptive field (pRF) model, we systematically tested the sampling of visual space within ventral and dorsal divisions of human EVC in both male and female participants. We found that (1) pRFs tend to be elliptical and oriented toward the fovea with distinct angular distributions for ventral and dorsal divisions of EVC, potentially reflecting a radial bias; and (2) pRFs in ventral areas were larger (∼1.5×) and more elliptical (∼1.2×) than those in dorsal areas. These differences potentially reflect a tendency for receptive fields in ventral temporal cortex to overlap the fovea with less emphasis on precise localization and isotropic representation of space compared with dorsal areas. Collectively, these findings suggest that ventral and dorsal divisions of EVC sample visual space differently, likely contributing to and/or stemming from the functional differentiation of visual processing observed in higher-level regions of the ventral and dorsal cortical visual pathways.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT The processing of visual information from the upper and lower visual fields is separated in visual cortex. Although ventral and dorsal divisions of early visual cortex (EVC) are commonly assumed to sample visual space equivalently, we demonstrate systematic differences using an elliptical population receptive field (pRF) model. Specifically, we demonstrate that (1) ventral and dorsal divisions of EVC exhibit diverging distributions of pRF angle, which are biased toward the fovea; and (2) ventral pRFs exhibit higher aspect ratios and cover larger areas than dorsal pRFs. These results suggest that ventral and dorsal divisions of EVC sample visual space differently and that such differential sampling likely contributes to different functional roles attributed to the ventral and dorsal pathways, such as object recognition and visually guided attention, respectively.
Copyright © 2018 the authors 0270-6474/18/382294-10$15.00/0.

Entities:  

Keywords:  population receptive field modeling; retinotopy; visual cortex

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29382711      PMCID: PMC5830517          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2717-17.2018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  46 in total

1.  High-level visual object representations are constrained by position.

Authors:  Dwight J Kravitz; Nikolaus Kriegeskorte; Chris I Baker
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 5.357

2.  Two retinotopic visual areas in human lateral occipital cortex.

Authors:  Jonas Larsson; David J Heeger
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2006-12-20       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Neural correlates of the visual vertical meridian asymmetry.

Authors:  Taosheng Liu; David J Heeger; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2006-11-08       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Topographic representation of numerosity in the human parietal cortex.

Authors:  B M Harvey; B P Klein; N Petridou; S O Dumoulin
Journal:  Science       Date:  2013-09-06       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Individual differences in visual field shape modulate the effects of attention on the lower visual field advantage in crowding.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Michael A Silver; Lynn C Robertson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 6.  Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) of the human brain.

Authors:  E A DeYoe; P Bandettini; J Neitz; D Miller; P Winans
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  Normal readers have an upper visual field advantage in change detection.

Authors:  Jacqueline S Rutkowski; David P Crewther; Sheila G Crewther
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.207

8.  A precise retinotopic map of primate striate cortex generated from the representation of angioscotomas.

Authors:  Daniel L Adams; Jonathan C Horton
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2003-05-01       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  The foveal confluence in human visual cortex.

Authors:  Mark M Schira; Christopher W Tyler; Michael Breakspear; Branka Spehar
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them.

Authors:  M A Goodale; A D Milner; L S Jakobson; D P Carey
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-01-10       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  10 in total

1.  Population Receptive Field Shapes in Early Visual Cortex Are Nearly Circular.

Authors:  Garikoitz Lerma-Usabiaga; Jonathan Winawer; Brian A Wandell
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Population receptive fields in nonhuman primates from whole-brain fMRI and large-scale neurophysiology in visual cortex.

Authors:  P Christiaan Klink; Xing Chen; Wim Vanduffel; Pieter R Roelfsema
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-11-03       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  The Human Connectome Project 7 Tesla retinotopy dataset: Description and population receptive field analysis.

Authors:  Noah C Benson; Keith W Jamison; Michael J Arcaro; An T Vu; Matthew F Glasser; Timothy S Coalson; David C Van Essen; Essa Yacoub; Kamil Ugurbil; Jonathan Winawer; Kendrick Kay
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Modulating the global orientation bias of the visual system changes population receptive field elongations.

Authors:  Christian Merkel; Jens-Max Hopf; Mircea Ariel Schoenfeld
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 5.038

5.  The Importance of Considering Model Choices When Interpreting Results in Computational Neuroimaging.

Authors:  Thomas C Sprague; Geoffrey M Boynton; John T Serences
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2019-12-20

6.  Divisive normalization unifies disparate response signatures throughout the human visual hierarchy.

Authors:  Marco Aqil; Tomas Knapen; Serge O Dumoulin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-11-16       Impact factor: 12.779

7.  Receptor architecture of macaque and human early visual areas: not equal, but comparable.

Authors:  Lucija Rapan; Meiqi Niu; Ling Zhao; Thomas Funck; Katrin Amunts; Karl Zilles; Nicola Palomero-Gallagher
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.748

Review 8.  What and Where: Location-Dependent Feature Sensitivity as a Canonical Organizing Principle of the Visual System.

Authors:  Madineh Sedigh-Sarvestani; David Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Front Neural Circuits       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 3.342

9.  Improved correspondence of fMRI visual field localizer data after cortex-based macroanatomical alignment.

Authors:  Mishal Qubad; Catherine V Barnes-Scheufler; Michael Schaum; Eva Raspor; Lara Rösler; Benjamin Peters; Carmen Schiweck; Rainer Goebel; Andreas Reif; Robert A Bittner
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 4.996

10.  Cross-dataset reproducibility of human retinotopic maps.

Authors:  Marc M Himmelberg; Jan W Kurzawski; Noah C Benson; Denis G Pelli; Marisa Carrasco; Jonathan Winawer
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 6.556

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.