September 2019
Volume 19, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2019
Attenuated brain responses to Gestalts at threshold: differential predictive processing behind Gestalt phenomena?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Thiago L Costa
    Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, KU Leuven - Belgium
    Brain and Cognition research unit, KU Leuven - Belgium
  • Andrey R Nikolaev
    Brain and Cognition research unit, KU Leuven - Belgium
  • Cees van Leeuwen
    Brain and Cognition research unit, KU Leuven - Belgium
  • Johan Wagemans
    Laboratory of Experimental Psychology, KU Leuven - Belgium
    Brain and Cognition research unit, KU Leuven - Belgium
Journal of Vision September 2019, Vol.19, 36d. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.36d
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Thiago L Costa, Andrey R Nikolaev, Cees van Leeuwen, Johan Wagemans; Attenuated brain responses to Gestalts at threshold: differential predictive processing behind Gestalt phenomena?. Journal of Vision 2019;19(10):36d. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.36d.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

The aim of this work was to assess bias and expectation effects towards Gestalts and their corresponding neural correlates, in a task with minimal visual search or salience confounders. We presented stimuli at threshold to equate task difficulty and salience between different stimulus types. By making target discrimination more demanding, we make room for stronger expectation effects. We used a change detection task to measure responses to the emergent features of proximity and orientation. The base stimulus was a pair of dots. The dots could change in their configuration (orientation / proximity, i.e. Gestalt conditions) or change location without changing configuration (two control conditions, moving horizontally or vertically). To assess expectations, we had two types of blocks: blocks where only one stimulus type was presented (blocked condition) and blocks where all stimuli were presented with equal likelihood (mixed condition). We performed a QUEST psychophysical procedure (manipulating the amount of displacement of the dots) prior to the EEG recording to ensure that all stimulus types were presented at 81% correct performance levels for each participant. In summary, the task measures implicit expectations, without substantial target selection or distractor suppression demands and requires no classification of stimulus type: responses are based on change of location. As planned, we found no relevant significant differences between stimulus types at accuracy or RTs (except for proximity being different from control in one of the blocks). Analyses of the P1, N1, P2 an P3 event-related potentials showed that Gestalt conditions generally led to smaller responses than control conditions (significant from N1 to P3). This effect was larger in the mixed condition and also larger for orientation. Analyses of prestimulus activity will be performed, but these results already provide initial support for the hypotheses derived from reverse hierarchy theory and predictive coding models of visual processing.

Acknowledgement: EU Marie Sklodowska-Curie Fellowship #795043 granted to TLC and METH/14/02 awarded to JW. 
×
×

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.

×