September 2015
Volume 15, Issue 12
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2015
The occipital place area represents the local elements of scenes
Author Affiliations
  • Frederik Kamps
    Emory University
  • Joshua Julian
    University of Pennsylvania
  • Jonas Kubilius
    KU Leuven
  • Nancy Kanwisher
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Daniel Dilks
    Emory University
Journal of Vision September 2015, Vol.15, 514. doi:10.1167/15.12.514
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Frederik Kamps, Joshua Julian, Jonas Kubilius, Nancy Kanwisher, Daniel Dilks; The occipital place area represents the local elements of scenes. Journal of Vision 2015;15(12):514. doi: 10.1167/15.12.514.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Behavioral and computational research has proposed that a scene (e.g., a kitchen) can be represented by two independent, yet complementary descriptors: i) its spatial boundary (i.e., the external shape, size, and scope of the space the scene represents) and ii) its content (i.e., the internal elements encompassing objects, textures, colors, and materials). But how does the brain represent these descriptors? A central hypothesis is that one scene-selective cortical region (parahippocampal place area – PPA) represents both spatial boundary and content information, while a second region (retrosplenial complex – RSC) represents spatial boundary only. Such representation for a third scene-selective region (occipital place area – OPA) has never been tested. To test spatial boundary representation, we compared responses to images of intact rooms with images of these same rooms when their walls, floors, and ceilings had been fractured and rearranged, such that they no longer defined a coherent space. We found OPA, unlike PPA and RSC, responded similarly to both the intact and fractured rooms, suggesting OPA does not represent spatial boundary per se, but rather the local elements (i.e., walls, floors, ceilings) composing the space, independent of their spatial arrangement. To test content representation, we compared responses to images of furniture with non-furniture objects. We found OPA, like PPA, responded more to furniture than non-furniture objects. Interestingly, however, while both OPA and PPA represent content information, they do so differently; in another test, we found only OPA was sensitive to the number of pieces of furniture, suggesting OPA represents the local elements of scene content, while PPA represents the global aspects of scene content, independent of the number of objects present. Taken together, our results suggest OPA analyzes local scene elements – both in spatial boundary and content representation – while PPA and RSC represent global scene properties.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×