Predicting cued and oddball visual search performance from neural representational similarity
Yeh, L.-C.; Thorat, S.; Peelen, M. V.
Show abstract
Capacity limitations in visual tasks can be observed when the number of task-related objects increases. An influential idea is that such capacity limitations are determined by competition at the neural level: two objects that are encoded by shared neural populations interfere more in behavior (e.g., visual search) than two objects encoded by separate neural populations. However, the neural representational similarity of objects varies across brain regions and across time, raising the question of where and when competition determines task performance. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the association between neural representational similarity and task performance is common or unique across tasks. Here, we used neural representational similarity derived from fMRI, MEG, and deep neural networks (DNN) to predict performance on two visual search tasks involving the same objects and requiring the same responses but differing in instructions: cued visual search and oddball visual search. Separate groups of human participants (both sexes) viewed the individual objects in neuroimaging experiments to establish the neural representational similarity between those objects. Results showed that performance on both search tasks could be predicted by neural representational similarity throughout the visual system (fMRI), from 80 msec after onset (MEG), and in all DNN layers. Stepwise regression analysis, however, revealed task-specific associations, with unique variability in oddball search performance predicted by early/posterior neural similarity, and unique variability in cued search task performance predicted by late/anterior neural similarity. These results reveal that capacity limitations in superficially similar visual search tasks may reflect competition at different stages of visual processing. Significance StatementVisual search for target objects is slowed down by the presence of distractors, but not all distractors are equally distracting - the more similar a distractor is to the target, the more it slows down search. Here, we used fMRI, MEG, and a deep neural network to reveal where, when, and how neural similarity between targets and distractors predicts visual search performance across two search tasks: oddball visual search (locating the different-looking object) and cued visual search (locating the cued object). Results also revealed brain regions, time points, and feature levels that predicted task-unique performance. These results provide a neural basis for similarity theories of visual search and show that this neural basis differs across visual search tasks.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Dissociating the neural correlates of subjective visibility from those of decision confidence 97%
- The spatiotemporal neural dynamics of object recognition for natural images and line drawings 97%
- Disentangling the Independent Contributions of Visual and Conceptual Features to the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Scene Categorization 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Spatial and temporal context jointly modulate the sensory response within the ventral visual stream 97%
- Abstract neural representations of category membership beyond information coding stimulus or response 96%
- Spatial predictive context speeds up visual search by biasing local attentional competition 96%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Individuation of parts of a single object and multiple distinct objects relies on a common neural mechanism in inferior intraparietal sulcus 97%
- Predicted Utility Modulates Working Memory Fidelity in the Brain 96%
- Disturbance of Information in Superior Parietal Lobe during Dual-task Interference in a Simulated Driving Task 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.