Back

Temporal evolution of color representations measured with MEG reveals a 'coarse to fine' dynamic

Goddard, E.; Mullen, K. T.

2024-12-20 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.12.19.629529 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Color perception is based on the differential spectral responses of the L, M and S-cones, subsequent subcortical and cortical computations, and may include the influence of higher order factors such as language. Although the early subcortical stages of color vision are well characterised, the organization of cortical representations of color remain elusive, despite numerous models based on discrimination thresholds, appearance and categorization. An underexplored aspect of cortical color representations is their dynamic evolution. Here we compare the evolution of three different color representations over time using magnetoencephalography (MEG). We measured neural responses to 14 hues at each of 3 achromatic offsets (increment, isoluminant and decrement) while participants attended either to the exact color of the stimulus or its color category. We used a series of classification analyses, combined with multidimensional scaling (MDS) and Representational Similarity Analysis, to ask how cortical representations of color unfold over time from stimulus onset. We compared the performance of higher order models based on hue and color category with a model based simply on stimulus cone contrast and found that all models had significant correlations with the data. However, the unique variance accounted for by each model revealed a dynamic change in hue responses over time, that was consistent with a coarse to fine transition from a broad clustering into categorical groups to a finer within category representation. Notably, these dynamics were replicated across datasets from both tasks, suggesting they reflect a robust reorganization of cortical hue responses over time.

Published in Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (predicted rank #3) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"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.