4.6 Article

Early Category-Specific Cortical Activation Revealed by Visual Stimulus Inversion

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 3, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003503

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1NS44824, P41 RR14075]
  2. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [R 95-403, 451-05-014]
  3. MIND institute
  4. Center for Functional Neuroimaging Technologies
  5. The Whitaker Foundation [RG-01-0294]
  6. Swiss National Foundation [PPOOB 110741]
  7. HFSP [RGP0054/2004-C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Visual categorization may already start within the first 100-ms after stimulus onset, in contrast with the long-held view that during this early stage all complex stimuli are processed equally and that category-specific cortical activation occurs only at later stages. The neural basis of this proposed early stage of high-level analysis is however poorly understood. To address this question we used magnetoencephalography and anatomically-constrained distributed source modeling to monitor brain activity with millisecond-resolution while subjects performed an orientation task on the upright and upside-down presented images of three different stimulus categories: faces, houses and bodies. Significant inversion effects were found for all three stimulus categories between 70-100-ms after picture onset with a highly category-specific cortical distribution. Differential responses between upright and inverted faces were found in well-established face-selective areas of the inferior occipital cortex and right fusiform gyrus. In addition, early category-specific inversion effects were found well beyond visual areas. Our results provide the first direct evidence that category-specific processing in high-level category-sensitive cortical areas already takes place within the first 100-ms of visual processing, significantly earlier than previously thought, and suggests the existence of fast category-specific neocortical routes in the human brain.

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

4.6
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