4.4 Article

Equal Degrees of Object Selectivity for Upper and Lower Visual Field Stimuli

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 4, Pages 2075-2081

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00462.2010

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health [9335]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Strother L, Aldcroft A, Lavell C, Vilis T. Equal degrees of object selectivity for upper and lower visual field stimuli. J Neurophysiol 104: 2075-2081, 2010. First published August 18, 2010; doi:10.1152/jn.00462.2010. Functional MRI (fMRI) studies of the human object recognition system commonly identify object-selective cortical regions by comparing blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) responses to objects versus those to scrambled objects. Object selectivity distinguishes human lateral occipital cortex (LO) from earlier visual areas. Recent studies suggest that, in addition to being object selective, LO is retinotopically organized; LO represents both object and location information. Although LO responses to objects have been shown to depend on location, it is not known whether responses to scrambled objects vary similarly. This is important because it would suggest that the degree of object selectivity in LO does not vary with retinal stimulus position. We used a conventional functional localizer to identify human visual area LO by comparing BOLD responses to objects versus scrambled objects presented to either the upper (UVF) or lower (LVF) visual field. In agreement with recent findings, we found evidence of position-dependent responses to objects. However, we observed the same degree of position dependence for scrambled objects and thus object selectivity did not differ for UVF and LVF stimuli. We conclude that, in terms of BOLD response, LO discriminates objects from non-objects equally well in either visual field location, despite stronger responses to objects in the LVF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available