4.6 Article

Where bottom-up meets top-down: Neuronal interactions during perception and imagery

期刊

CEREBRAL CORTEX
卷 14, 期 11, 页码 1256-1265

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhh087

关键词

dynamic causal modelling; functional magnetic resonance imaging; visual imagery; visual perception

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH64445] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust [051067] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have identified category-selective regions in ventral occipito-temporal cortex that respond preferentially to faces and other objects. The extent to which these patterns of activation are modulated by bottom-up or top-down mechanisms is currently unknown. We combined fMRI and dynamic causal modelling to investigate neuronal interactions between occipito-temporal, parietal and frontal regions, during visual perception and visual imagery of faces, houses and chairs. Our results indicate that, during visual perception, category-selective patterns of activation in extrastriate cortex are mediated by content-sensitive forward connections from early visual areas. In contrast, during visual imagery, category-selective activation is mediated by content-sensitive backward connections from prefrontal cortex. Additionally, we report content-unrelated connectivity between parietal cortex and the category-selective regions, during both perception and imagery. Thus, our investigation revealed that neuronal interactions between occipito-temporal, parietal and frontal regions are task- and stimulus-dependent. Sensory representations of faces and objects are mediated by bottom-up mechanisms arising in early visual areas and top-down mechanisms arising in prefrontal cortex, during perception and imagery respectively. Additionally non-selective, top-down processes, originating in superior parietal areas, contribute to the generation of mental images, regardless of their content, and their maintenance in the 'mind's eye'.

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