Is there a neural common factor for visual illusions?
Jastrzebowska, M. A.; Ozkirli, A.; Cretenoud, A. F.; Draganski, B.; Herzog, M. H.
Show abstract
It is tempting to map interindividual variability in human perception to variability in brain structure or neural activity. Indeed, it has been shown that susceptibility to size illusions correlates with the size of primary visual cortex V1. Yet contrary to common belief, illusions correlate only weakly at the perceptual level, raising the question of how they can correlate with a localized neural measure. In addition, mounting evidence suggests that there is substantial interindividual variability not only in neural function and anatomy but also in the mapping between the two, which further challenges the findings of a neural common factor for illusions. To better understand these questions, here, we re-evaluated previous studies by correlating illusion strengths in a battery of 13 illusions with the size of visual areas and population receptive field sizes. We did not find significant correlations either at the perceptual level or between illusion susceptibility and visual functional neuroanatomy.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Pupillary manifolds: uncovering the latent geometrical structures behind phasic changes in pupil size 95%
- Reduced alpha amplitudes predict perceptual suppression 95%
- Learning to see the Ebbinghaus illusion in the periphery reveals a top-down stabilization of size perception across the visual field 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Linking individual differences in human primary visual cortex to contrast sensitivity around the visual field 96%
- Holistic face recognition is an emergent phenomenon of spatial integration in face-selective regions 95%
- Comparing retinotopic maps of children and adults reveals a late-stage change in how V1 samples the visual field 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.