Acquisition of Long-Term Visual Representations: Psychological and Neural Mechanisms
How do we so rapidly achieve an organized, coherent visual percept of our superficially chaotic world? One way of reducing the complexity of the input is to take advantage of the statistical regularities and regular co-occurrences between aspects of objects and between objects and their spatial locations. In this chapter, converging data obtained from normal and brain-damaged individuals, as well as from single unit recording studies in monkeys, are presented, all of which address the psychological and neural mechanisms associated with statistical learning. The first section deals with learning regularities associated with particular spatial locations, presumably a function of the dorsal ‘where’ stream and data from normal individuals and from patients with hemispatial neglect are presented. The second section reports the findings from human and monkey studies, which show how statistical contingencies of the visual environment are reflected in behavior and how neurons in monkey inferotemporal cortex, the ventral “what” stream, appear to mediate these statistical effects. Taken together, using data from a variety of methodologies, this work attests to the flexibility and robustness of the visual system and sheds light on the way in which perceptual organization operates to convert raw input into long-term visual representations.
Key wordsVision perceptual organization visual learning neuropsychology agnosia neurophysiology
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bartolomeo, P., & Chokron, S. (2001). Levels of impairment in unilateral neglect. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of Neuropsychology (Vol. 4, pp. 67–98). North-Holland: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Bisiach, E., & Vallar, G. (2000). Unilateral neglect in humans. In F. Boller & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of Neuropsychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 459–502). North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
- Edelman, S., Hiles, B. P., Yang, H., & Intrator, N. (2002). Probabilistic principles in unsupervised learning of visual structure: Human data and a model. In T. G. Dietterich, S. Becker, & Z. Gharamani (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 14, pp. 19–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Greggers, U., & Mauelshagen, J. (1997). Matching behavior of honeybees in a multiple-choice situation: The differential effect of environmental stimuli on the choice process. Animal Learning & Behavior, 25, 458–472.Google Scholar
- Handy, T. C., Green, V., Klein, R. M., & Mangun, G. R. (2001). Combined expectancies: Event-related potentials reveal the early benefits of spatial attention that are obscured by reaction time measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Palmer, S. E., & Rock, I. (1994). On the nature and order of organizational processing: A reply to Peterson. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 515–519.Google Scholar
- Riddoch, M. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1987). Perceptual and action systems in unilateral visual neglect. In M. Jeannerod (Ed.), Neurophysiological and neuropsychological aspects of spatial neglect (pp. 151–181). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., & Halligan, P. W. (1987). Behavioral inattention test. Suffolk, England: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar