4.7 Article

Natural Scene Categories Revealed in Distributed Patterns of Activity in the Human Brain

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 29, 期 34, 页码 10573-10581

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0559-09.2009

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1 R01 EY019429]
  2. Beckman Postdoctoral Fellowship
  3. Microsoft Research New Faculty Fellowship
  4. Frank Moss Gift Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human subjects are extremely efficient at categorizing natural scenes, despite the fact that different classes of natural scenes often share similar image statistics. Thus far, however, it is unknown where and how complex natural scene categories are encoded and discriminated in the brain. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and distributed pattern analysis to ask what regions of the brain can differentiate natural scene categories (such as forests vs mountains vs beaches). Using completely different exemplars of six natural scene categories for training and testing ensured that the classification algorithm was learning patterns associated with the category in general and not specific exemplars. We found that area V1, the parahippocampal place area (PPA), retrosplenial cortex (RSC), and lateral occipital complex (LOC) all contain information that distinguishes among natural scene categories. More importantly, correlations with human behavioral experiments suggest that the information present in the PPA, RSC, and LOC is likely to contribute to natural scene categorization by humans. Specifically, error patterns of predictions based on fMRI signals in these areas were significantly correlated with the behavioral errors of the subjects. Furthermore, both behavioral categorization performance and predictions from PPA exhibited a significant decrease in accuracy when scenes were presented up-down inverted. Together these results suggest that a network of regions, including the PPA, RSC, and LOC, contribute to the human ability to categorize natural scenes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据