4.7 Article

Decoding of EEG signals reveals non-uniformities in the neural geometry of colour*

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 268, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2023.119884

关键词

Unique hues; Electroencephalography; Decoding; Population encoding; Colour perception

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The concept of colour opponency suggests that colour vision is based on the comparison of two chromatic mechanisms: red versus green and yellow versus blue. Unique hues, including red, green, blue, and yellow, are assumed to correspond to the null points of these chromatic systems. This study demonstrates that electroencephalographic responses carry robust information about tested unique hues within a specific timeframe. The efficiency of hue decoding is influenced by luminance contrast and perceptual neighbourhoods.
The idea of colour opponency maintains that colour vision arises through the comparison of two chromatic mech-anisms, red versus green and yellow versus blue. The four unique hues, red, green, blue, and yellow, are assumed to appear at the null points of these the two chromatic systems. Here we hypothesise that, if unique hues represent a tractable cortical state, they should elicit more robust activity compared to other, non-unique hues. We use a spatiotemporal decoding approach to report that electroencephalographic (EEG) responses carry robust informa-tion about the tested isoluminant unique hues within a 100-350 ms window from stimulus onset. Decoding is possible in both passive and active viewing tasks, but is compromised when concurrent high luminance contrast is added to the colour signals. For large hue-differences, the efficiency of hue decoding can be predicted by mutual distance in a nominally uniform perceptual colour space. However, for small perceptual neighbourhoods around unique hues, the encoding space shows pivotal non-uniformities which suggest that anisotropies in neurometric hue-spaces may reflect perceptual unique hues.

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