Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-7tp2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-10T09:13:18.395Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

2 - The Distributed Nature of Visual Object Learning

from I - VISUAL AND VISUOMOTOR PLASTICITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2013

By
Hans P. Op de Beeck
Edited by
Jennifer K. E. Steeves  and
Laurence R. Harris
Hans P. Op de Beeck
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
Jennifer K. E. Steeves
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Laurence R. Harris
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
Get access

Summary

Introduction

We mostly take object vision for granted, simply because our brain makes it seem easy. As a consequence, most of what we learn about objects during both development and adulthood goes unnoticed. Once the input to the system is in order (so excluding retinal disorders), almost all people can recognize cars, Coca-Cola bottles, and Barbie dolls. We only get a glimpse of the complexity of the underlying processes when we go through the most challenging tasks that we are typically confronted with. For example, some people have below average skills in face recognition. In this respect, interindividual differences in the most challenging object recognition tasks, created either naturally or in the lab by manipulating experience, serve as a gold mine for trying to understand the brain's exceptional ability to recognize objects.

My favorite example of an idiosyncratic object recognition talent is Gudrun, my eight-year-old daughter. She has a favorite teddy bear, are affection that developed when she was only a few months old. When Gudrun was one year old, my wife and I bought a second identical bear (just in case the first one was lost). Obviously, she noticed the difference between the old bear (which she calls “pretty bear”) and the new one. It was also easy for us parents to differentiate between the old worn bear and the new exemplar. However, over the years these differences became very minor, and now no one can reliably differentiate “pretty bear” from “new bear.”

Type
Chapter
Information
Plasticity in Sensory Systems , pp. 9 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, C. I., Behrmann, M. and Olson, C. R. (2002). Impact of learning on representation of parts and wholes in monkey inferotemporal cortex. Nat. Neurosci., 5: 1210–1216.Google Scholar
Bilalic, M., Langner, R.,Ulrich, R. and Grodd, W. (2011). Many faces of expertise: fusiform face area in chess experts and novices. J. Neurosci., 31: 10206–10214.Google Scholar
Bondar, I. V., Leopold, D. A., Richmond, B. J., Victor, J. D. and Logothetis, N. K. (2009). Long-term stability of visual pattern selective responses of monkey temporal lobe neurons. PLoS ONE, 4: e8222.Google Scholar
Bracci, S., Ietswaart, M., Peelen, M. V. and Cavina-Pratesi, C. (2010). Dissociable neural responses to hands and non-hand body parts in human left extrastriate visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol., 103: 3389–3397.Google Scholar
Brants, M., Wagemans, J. and Op de Beeck, H. P. (2012). Activation of fusiform face area by Greebles is related to face similarity but not expertise. J. Cogn. Neurosci., 34: 3949–3958.Google Scholar
Brincat, S. L. and Connor, C. E. (2004). Underlying principles of visual shape selectivity in posterior inferotemporal cortex. Nat. Neurosci., 7: 880–886.Google Scholar
Bukach, C. M., Gauthier, I. and Tarr, M. J. (2006). Beyond faces and modularity: the power of an expertise framework. Trends Cogn. Sci., 10: 159–166.Google Scholar
Bukach, C. M., Vickery, T. J., Kinka, D. and Gauthier, I. (2012). Training experts: individuation without naming is worth it. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform., 38(1): 14–7.Google Scholar
Chao, L. L., Haxby, J. V. and Martin, A. (1999). Attribute-based neural substrates in temporal cortex for perceiving and knowing about objects. Nat. Neurosci., 2: 913–919.Google Scholar
Chao, L. L., Martin, A. and Haxby, J. V. (1999). Are face-responsive regions selective only for faces?NeuroReport, 10: 2945–2950.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Lehericy, S., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Henaff, M. A. and Michel, F. (2000). The visual word form area: spatial and temporal characterization of an initial stage of reading in normal subjects and posterior split-brain patients. Brain, 123: 291–307.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Lehericy, S., Chochon, F., Lemer, C., Rivaud, S. and Dehaene, S. (2002). Language-specific tuning of visual cortex? Functional properties of the visual word form area. Brain, 125: 1054–1069.Google Scholar
Cox, D. D., Meier, P., Oertelt, N. and DiCarlo, J. J. (2005). “Breaking” position-invariant object recognition. Nat. Neurosci., 8: 1145–1147.Google Scholar
De Baene, W., Ons, B., Wagemans, J. and Vogels, R. (2008). Effects of category learning on the stimulus selectivity of macaque inferior temporal neurons. Learn. Mem., 15: 717–727.Google Scholar
De Baene, W. and Vogels, R. (2010). Effects of adaptation on the stimulus selectivity of macaque inferior temporal spiking activity and local field potentials. Cereb. Cortex, 20: 2145–2165.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S. and Cohen, L. (2007). Cultural recycling of cortical maps. Neuron, 56: 384–398.Google Scholar
Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Nunes Filho, G., Jobert, A., Dohaene-Lambentz, G., Kohinky, R., Morais, J. and Cohen, L. (2010). How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and language. Science, 330: 1359–1364.Google Scholar
Desimone, R., Albright, T. D., Gross, C. G. and Bruce, C. (1984). Stimulus-selective properties of inferior temporal neurons in the macaque. J. Neurosci., 4: 2051–2062.Google Scholar
Diamond, R. and Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen., 115: 107–117.Google Scholar
DiCarlo, J. J. and Cox, D. D. (2007). Untangling invariant object recognition. Trends Cogn. Sci., 11: 333–341.Google Scholar
Downing, P. E., Jiang, Y., Shuman, M. and Kanwisher, N. (2001). A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science, 293: 2470–2473.Google Scholar
Gauthier, I. (2000). What constrains the organization of the ventral temporal cortex?Trends Cogn. Sci., 4: 1–2.Google Scholar
Gauthier, I., Skudlarski, P., Gore, J. C. and Anderson, A. W. (2000). Expertise for cars and birds recruits brain areas involved in face recognition. Nat. Neurosci., 3: 191–197.Google Scholar
Gauthier, I., Tarr, M. J., Anderson, A. W., Skudlarski, P. and Gore, J. C. (1999). Activation of the middle fusiform “face area” increases with expertise in recognizing novel objects. Nat. Neurosci., 2: 568–573.Google Scholar
Gross, C. G., Rocha-Miranda, C. E. and Bender, D. B. (1972). Visual properties of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the macaque. J. Neurophysiol., 35: 96–111.Google Scholar
Harel, A., Gilaie-Dotan, S., Malach, R. and Bentin, S. (2010). Top-down engagement modulates the neural expressions of visual expertise. Cereb. Cortex, 20: 2304–2318.Google Scholar
Harley, E. M., Pope, W. B., Villablanca, J. P., Mumford, J., Suh, R., Mazziotta, J. C., Engmann, D. and Engel, S. A. (2009). Engagement of fusiform cortex and disengagement of lateral occipital cortex in the acquisition of radiological expertise. Cereb. Cortex, 19: 2746–2754.Google Scholar
Hasson, U., Levy, I., Behrmann, M., Hendler, T. and Malach, R. (2002). Eccentricity bias as an organizing principle for human high-order object areas. Neuron, 34: 479–490.Google Scholar
Haushofer, J., Livingstone, M. S. and Kanwisher, N. (2008). Multivariate patterns in objectselective cortex dissociate perceptual and physical shape similarity. PLoS Biol., 6: e187.Google Scholar
Haxby, J. V., Gobbini, M. I., Furey, M. L., Ishai, A., Schouten, J. L., and Pietrini, P. (2001). Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventrotemporal cortox. Science, 293(5539): 2425–2430.Google Scholar
Hoffman, K. L. and Logothetis, N. K. (2009). Cortical mechanisms of sensory learning and object recognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci., 364: 321–329.Google Scholar
Hung, C. P., Kreiman, G., Poggio, T. and DiCarlo, J. J. (2005). Fast readout of object identity from macaque inferior temporal cortex. Science, 310: 863–866.Google Scholar
Ito, M., Tamura, H., Fujita, I. and Tanaka, K. (1995). Size and position invariance of neuronal responses in monkey inferotemporal cortex. J. Neurophysiol., 73: 218–226.Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J. and Chun, M. M. (1997). The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J. Neurosci., 17: 4302–4311.Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N., Woods, R. P., Iacoboni, M. and Mazziotta, J. C. (1997). A locus in human extrastriate cortex for visual shape analysis. J. Cogn. Neurosci., 9: 133–142.Google Scholar
Kanwisher, N. and Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci., 361: 2109–2128.Google Scholar
Kobatake, E., Wang, G. and Tanaka, K. (1998). Effects of shape-discrimination training on the selectivity of inferotemporal cells in adult monkeys. J. Neurophysiol., 80: 324–330.Google Scholar
Krawczyk, D. C., Boggan, A. L., McClelland, M. M. and Bartlett, J. C. (2011). The neural organization of perception in chess experts. Neurosci. Lett., 499: 64–69.Google Scholar
Li, N. and DiCarlo, J. J. (2008). Unsupervised natural experience rapidly alters invariant object representation in visual cortex. Science, 321: 1502–1507.Google Scholar
Li, N. and DiCarlo, J. J. (2010). Unsupervised natural visual experience rapidly reshapes size-invariant object representation in inferior temporal cortex. Neuron, 67: 1062–1075.Google Scholar
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J. and Poggio, T. (1995). Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys. Curr. Biol., 5: 552–563.Google Scholar
Logothetis, N. K. and Sheinberg, D. L. (1996). Visual object recognition. Ann. Rev. Neurosci., 19: 577–621.Google Scholar
Mahon, B. Z., Milleville, S. C., Negri, G. A., Rumiati, R. I., Caramazza, A. and Martin, A. (2007). Action-related properties shape object representations in the ventral stream. Neuron, 55: 507–520.Google Scholar
Malach, R., Reppas, J. B., Benson, R. R., Kwong, K. K., Jiang, H., Kennedy, W. A., Ledden, P. J., Brady, T. J., Rosen, B. R. and Tootell, R. B. (1995). Object-related activity revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging in human occipital cortex. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 92: 8135–8139.Google Scholar
Mante, V. and Carandini, M. (2005). Mapping of stimulus energy in primary visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol., 94: 788–798.Google Scholar
Martin, A., Wiggs, C. L., Ungerleider, L. G. and Haxby, J. V. (1996). Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature, 379: 649–652.Google Scholar
Mckone, E. and Robbins, R. (2011). Are faces special? In A. J., Calder, G., Rhodes, J. V., Haxby and M. H., Johnson (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Face Perception, pp. 149–176. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Miyashita, Y. (1988). Neuronal correlate of visual associative long-term memory in the primate temporal cortex. Nature, 335: 817–820.Google Scholar
Miyashita, Y. (1993). Inferior temporal cortex: where visual perception meets memory. Ann. Rev. Neurosci., 16: 245–263.Google Scholar
Miyashita, Y., Date, A. and Okuno, H. (1993). Configurational encoding of complex visual forms by single neurons of monkey temporal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 31: 1119–1131.Google Scholar
Miyashita, Y., Kameyama, M., Hasegawa, I. and Fukushima, T. (1998). Consolidation of visual associative long-term memory in the temporal cortex of primates. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem., 70: 197–211.Google Scholar
Miyashita, Y., Okuno, H., Tokuyama, W., Ihara, T. and Nakajima, K. (1996). Feedback signal from medial temporal lobe mediates visual associative mnemonic codes of inferotemporal neurons. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res., 5: 81–86.Google Scholar
Op de Beeck, H. P. and Baker, C. I. (2010). Informativeness and learning: response to Gauthier and colleagues. Trends Cogn. Sci., 14: 236–237.Google Scholar
Op de Beeck, H. P., Baker, C. I., DiCarlo, J. J. and Kanwisher, N. (2006). Discrimination training alters object representations in human extrastriate cortex. J. Neuorsci., 26: 13025–13036.Google Scholar
Op de Beeck, H. P., Brants, M., Baeck, A. and Wagemans, J. (2010). Distributed subordinate specificity for bodies, faces, and buildings in human ventral visual cortex. Neuroimage, 49: 3414–3425.Google Scholar
Op de Beeck, H. P., Haushofer, J. and Kanwisher, N. G. (2008). Interpreting fMRI data: maps, modules and dimensions. Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 9: 123–135.Google Scholar
Op de Beeck, H. P., Torfs, K. and Wagemans, J. (2008). Perceived shape similarity among unfamiliar objects and the organization of the human object vision pathway. J. Neurosci., 28: 10111–10123.Google Scholar
Op de Beeck, H. P.,Wagemans, J. and Vogels, R. (2001). Inferotemporal neurons represent low-dimensional configurations of parameterized shapes. Nat. Neurosci., 4: 1244–1252.Google Scholar
Panis, S.,Vangeneugden, J., Op de Beeck, H. P. and Wagemans, J. (2008). The representation of subordinate shape similarity in human occipitotemporal cortex. J. Vis., 8: 1–15.Google Scholar
Parga, N. and Rolls, E. (1998). Transform-invariant recognition by association in a recurrent network. Neural Comput., 10: 1507–1525.Google Scholar
Peelen, M. V. and Downing, P. E. (2007). The neural basis of visual body perception. Nat. Rev. Neurosci., 8: 636–648.Google Scholar
Quiroga, R. Q., Reddy, L., Kreiman, G., Koch, C. and Fried, I. (2005). Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain. Nature, 435: 1102–1107.Google Scholar
Raiguel, S., Vogels, R., Mysore, S. G. and Orban, G. A. (2006). Learning to see the difference specifically alters the most informative V4 neurons. J. Neurosci., 26: 6589–6602.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Byatt, G., Michie, P. T. and Puce, A. (2004). Is the fusiform face area specialized for faces, individuation, or expert individuation?J. Cogn. Neurosci., 16: 189–203.Google Scholar
Riesenhuber, M. and Poggio, T. (1999). Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex. Nat. Neurosci., 2: 1019–1025.Google Scholar
Roelfsema, P. R. and van Ooyen, A. (2005). Attention-gated reinforcement learning of internal representations for classification. Neural Comput., 17: 2176–2214.Google Scholar
Sary, G., Vogels, R. and Orban, G. A. (1993). Cue-invariant shape selectivity of macaque inferior temporal neurons. Science, 260: 995–997.Google Scholar
Schoups, A., Vogels, R., Qian, N. and Orban, G. (2001). Practising orientation identification improves orientation coding in V1 neurons. Nature, 412: 549–553.Google Scholar
Sheinberg, D. L. and Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Perceptual learning and the development of complex visual representations in temporal cortical neurons. In M., Fahle and T., Poggio (eds.), Perceptual Learning, pp. 95–124. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sigala, N. and Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual categorization shapes feature selectivity in the primate temporal cortex. Nature, 415: 318–320.Google Scholar
Song, Y., Hu, S., Li, X., Li, W. and Liu, J. (2010). The role of top-down task context in learning to perceive objects. J. Neurosci., 30: 9869–9876.Google Scholar
Tanaka, K. (2003). Columns for complex visual object features in the inferotemporal cortex: clustering of cells with similar but slightly different stimulus selectivities. Cereb. Cortex, 13: 90–99.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. C. and Downing, P. E. (2011). Division of labor between lateral and ventral extrastriate tepresentations of faces, bodies and objects. J. Cogn. Neurosci., 23: 4122–4137.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. C., Wiggett, A. J. and Downing, P. E. (2007). Functional MRI analysis of body and body part representations in the extrastriate and fusiform body areas. J. Neurophysiol., 98: 1626–1633.Google Scholar
Tovee, M. J., Rolls, E. T. and Ramachandran, V. S. (1996). Rapid visual learning in neurones of the primate temporal visual cortex. NeuroReport, 7: 2757–2760.Google Scholar
Vogels, R. (2010). Mechanisms of visual perceptual learning in macaque visual cortex. Top. Cogn. Sci., 2: 239–250.Google Scholar
Wagemans, J., Wichmann, F. A. and Op de Beeck, H. (2004). Visual perception I: basic principles. In K., Lamberts and R., Goldstone (eds.), Handbook of Cognition, pp. 3–47. London: Sage.
Wallis, G. and Rolls, E. T. (1997). Invariant face and object recognition in the visual system. Prog. Neurobiol., 51: 167–194.Google Scholar
Wilmer, J. B., Germine, L., Chabris, C. F., Chatterjee, G., Williams, M., Loken, E., Nakayama, K. and Duchaine, B. (2010). Human face recognition ability is specific and highly heritable. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 107: 5238–5241.Google Scholar
Wong, A. C., Palmeri, T. J. and Gauthier, I. (2009). Conditions for facelike expertise with objects: becoming a Ziggerin expert – but which type?Psychol. Sci., 20: 1108–1117.Google Scholar
Wong, A. C., Palmeri, T. J., Rogers, B. P., Gore, J. C. and Gauthier, I. (2009). Beyond shape: how you learn about objects affects how they are represented in visual cortex. PLoS ONE, 4: e8405.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (2005). Revisiting the role of the fusiform face area in visual expertise. Cereb. Cortex, 15: 1234–1242.Google Scholar
Yamane, Y., Carlson, E. T., Bowman, K. C., Wang, Z. and Connor, C. E. (2008). A neural code for three-dimensional object shape in macaque inferotemporal cortex. Nat. Neurosci., 11: 1352–1360.Google Scholar
Zhu, Q., Song, Y., Hu, S., Li, X., Tian, M., Zhen, Z., Dong, Q., Kanwisher, N. and Liu, J. (2010). Heritability of the specific cognitive ability of face perception. Curr. Biol., 20: 137–142.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×