August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
Effect of Target/Non-Target Similarity on the Timecourse of Visual Object Recognition: An ERP investigation
Author Affiliations
  • Amy Guthormsen
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
  • Michael Ham
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
  • Brenna Fearey
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
  • Luis Bettencourt
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
  • John George
    Los Alamos National Laboratory
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 819. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Amy Guthormsen, Michael Ham, Brenna Fearey, Luis Bettencourt, John George; Effect of Target/Non-Target Similarity on the Timecourse of Visual Object Recognition: An ERP investigation. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):819.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Some have argued that, because visual object recognition occurs so fast (<150 ms.), it must be essentially a feed-forward system. A study commonly cited as support reveals divergence between brain responses to visual targets and those to non-targets occurring around 150 ms after stimulus onset (Thorpe et al. 1996). However, it has been argued that visual targets (animals) differed in systematic ways from the non-targets (natural scenes with no animal). In this study, we investigated the effect of target /non-target similarity on the timecourse of ERP divergence. We recorded EEG data while participants did a binary-choice target recognition task in which the target was always either cat or dog (varied within-subject). Non-target stimuli included dogs, cats, and natural scenes with no animal. Dissimilar non-target waveforms diverged from target waveforms with a strikingly similar timecourse (roughly 150 ms post stimulus onset) and scalp distribution to that reported by Thorpe and colleagues. The difference between similar non-target and target waveforms differed. Both the time of divergence (350 ms) and the scalp distribution of target – non-target differences (central-parietal positivity) were reminiscent of a P300 effect. To explore the generality of this effect, we repeated the experiment with a different stimulus set, in which the target was always a male or a female face, and stimuli included male and female faces as well as images of non-face objects. Dissimilar non-targets and targets diverged with a similar timecourse and scalp distribution as seen in the cat/dog experiment. However, the difference between similar non-targets and targets had a more localized scalp distribution. These data are consistent with the theory that visual object recognition consists of a fast, feed-forward process that is adequate to make broad stimulus discriminations, and a slower process necessary to resolve detailed, specific representations, which may rely on feedback between visual areas.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012


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.