Visual objects in the real world are seen in contextual scenes. These contexts are usually coherent in terms of their physical and semantic content, and they usually occur in typical configurations. Objects can be used to make predictions about probable contexts and about other objects that might be found in the same scene, and contexts can be used to inform the identification of individual objects. A full understanding of object recognition must include a consideration of contextual and associative influences.
'Context frames' might be used as structures of prototypical contexts that represent information about the identity of, and relationships between, objects that are likely to be present in each context (for example, a prototypical bathroom would contain a sink and a mirror, with the mirror typically set above the sink).
These context frames can be viewed as sets of expectations that are derived from exposure to real-world scenes. During recognition, a single object can activate appropriate context frames, and context frames can activate representations of expected objects. Scenes and individual objects can facilitate identification of each other and of other objects that are expected to occur in the same context.
To be useful for facilitating object recognition, the gist of a scene must be extracted and rapidly processed. This rapid extraction might rely on global cues conveyed by low spatial frequencies in an image, with higher spatial frequencies providing details gradually and slowly.
Structures within the medial temporal lobe are thought to be important for associative processing. The prefrontal and retrosplenial cortex also seem to be important for processing contextual information. I propose that the parahippocampal cortex serves as a switchboard-like multiplexer that connects the representations of individual objects in the inferior temporal cortex, according to typical associations represented in context frames.
In the proposed model, a blurred, low-frequency representation of a scene is projected rapidly from the visual cortex to the parahippocampal areas, and a context frame is activated on the basis of an experience-based guess. This context frame activates associated representations of objects in the inferior temporal cortex. Simultaneously, the low-frequency image of a fixated object in the scene is also projected rapidly to the prefrontal cortex, which sensitizes the representations of objects that resemble the fixated object. In the inferior temporal cortex, these two sets of objects intersect and the object can be identified.
The proposed model accounts for many existing findings, and produces testable predictions about the contextual facilitation of object recognition.
We see the world in scenes, where visual objects occur in rich surroundings, often embedded in a typical context with other related objects. How does the human brain analyse and use these common associations? This article reviews the knowledge that is available, proposes specific mechanisms for the contextual facilitation of object recognition, and highlights important open questions. Although much has already been revealed about the cognitive and cortical mechanisms that subserve recognition of individual objects, surprisingly little is known about the neural underpinnings of contextual analysis and scene perception. Building on previous findings, we now have the means to address the question of how the brain integrates individual elements to construct the visual experience.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Biederman, I., Mezzanotte, R. J. & Rabinowitz, J. C. Scene perception: detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cogn. Psychol. 14, 143–177 (1982). A seminal study that characterizes the rules that govern a scene's structure and their influence on perception.
Bar, M. & Ullman, S. Spatial context in recognition. Perception 25, 343–352 (1996).
Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J. & Chun, M. M. The fusiform face area: a module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J. Neurosci. 17, 4302–4311 (1997).
Puce, A., Allison, T., Asgari, M., Gore, J. C. & McCarthy, G. Differential sensitivity of human visual cortex to faces, letterstrings, and textures: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. J. Neurosci. 16, 5205–5215 (1996).
Martin, A. et al. Neural correlates of category-specific knowledge. Nature 379, 649–652 (1996).
Ishai, A. et al. Distributed representation of objects in the human ventral visual pathway. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9379–9384 (1999).
Grill-Spector, K., Kourtzi, Z. & Kanwisher, N. The lateral occipital complex and its role in object recognition. Vision Res. 41, 1409–1422 (2001).
Malach, R., Levy, I. & Hasson, U. The topography of high-order human object areas. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6, 176–184 (2002).
Tanaka, K. Neuronal mechanisms of object recognition. Science 262, 685–688 (1993).
Haxby, J. V. et al. Distributed and overlapping representations of faces and objects in ventral temporal cortex. Science 293, 2425–2430 (2001).
Downing, P. E. et al. A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science 293, 2470–2473 (2001).
Bar, M. & Aminoff, E. Cortical analysis of visual context. Neuron 38, 347–358 (2003). Defines the cortical regions that are directly involved in the contextual analysis of visual objects.
Gabrieli, J. D., Poldrack, R. A. & Desmond, J. E. The role of left prefrontal cortex in language and memory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 906–913 (1998).
Biederman, I. et al. On the information extracted from a glance at a scene. J. Exp. Psychol. 103, 597–600 (1974).
Bartlett, F. C. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1932).
Mandler, J. M. in Memory Organization and Structure (ed. Puff, C. R.) 259–299 (Academic, New York, 1979).
Palmer, S. E. The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Mem. Cogn. 3, 519–526 (1975). One of the earliest and most compelling reports of contextual influences on object recognition.
Piaget, J. The Child's Construction of Reality (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1955).
Schank, R. C. in Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing (eds Schank, R. C. & Nash-Weber, B.) 117–121 (Tinlap, Arlington, Virginia, 1975).
Minsky, M. in The Psychology of Computer Vision (ed. Winston, P. H) 211–277 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1975).
Friedman, A. Framing pictures: the role of knowledge in automatized encoding and memory for gist. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 108, 316–355 (1979). A thorough study of the concept of frames in contextual representations
Barsalou, L. W. in Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (eds Kittay, E. & Lehrer, A.) 21–74 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1992).
Mandler, J. M. & Johnson, N. S. Some of the thousand words a picture is worth. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 2, 529–540 (1976).
Intraub, H. et al. Boundary extension for briefly glimpsed photographs: do common perceptual processes result in unexpected memory distortions? J. Mem. Lang. 35, 118–134 (1996).
Gottesman, C. V. & Intraub, H. Wide-angle memories of close-up scenes: a demonstration of boundary extension. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 31, 86–93 (1999).
Miller, M. B. & Gazzaniga, M. S. Creating false memories for visual scenes. Neuropsychologia 36, 513–520 (1998).
Hock, H. S. et al. Real-world schemata and scene recognition in adults and children. Mem. Cogn. 6, 423–431 (1978).
Cutler, B. L. & Penrod, S. D. in Memory in Context: Context in Memory (eds Davies, G. M. & Thomson, D. M.) 231–244 (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New York, 1988).
Oliva, A. & Torralba, A. Modeling the shape of a scene: a holistic representation of the spatial envelope. Int. J. Comput. Vision 42, 145–175 (2001). Provides computational demonstrations that low spatial frequencies are generally sufficient for scene categorization.
Henderson, J. M. & Hollingworth, A. High-level scene perception. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 243–271 (1999). A systematic review that elaborates on the opposition to the notion that context can facilitate object recognition.
Chun, M. M. Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 170–178 (2000).
Intraub, H. The representation of visual scenes. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1, 217–222 (1997).
Palmer, S. E. Vision Science. Photons to Phenomenology (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999).
Lowe, D. G. Perceptual Organization and Visual Recognition (Kluwer, Boston, 1985).
Ullman, S. Aligning pictorial descriptions: an approach to object recognition. Cognition 32, 193–254 (1989).
Murphy, G. L. & Wisniewski, E. J. Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: what a superordinate is good for. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 15, 572–586 (1989).
Davenport, J. L. & Potter, M. C. Scene consistency in object and background perception. Psychol. Sci. 15, 559–564 (2004).
Boyce, S. J., Pollatsek, A. & Rayner, K. Effect of background information on object identification. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 15, 556–566 (1989).
Metzger, R. L. & Antes, J. R. The nature of processing early in picture perception. Psychol. Res. 45, 267–274 (1983).
Bar, M. A cortical mechanism for triggering top–down facilitation in visual object recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 600–609 (2003). Describes some of the conceptual bases for the model of contextual facilitation that is proposed in this review.
Kosslyn, S. M. Image and Brain (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994).
de Graef, P., de Troy, A. & d'Ydewalle, G. Local and global contextual constraints on the identification of objects in scenes. Can. J. Psychol. 46, 489–508 (1992).
Hollingworth, A. & Henderson, J. M. Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception? J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 127, 398–415 (1998).
Auckland, M., Cave, K. R. & Donnelly, N. Perceptual errors in object recognition are reduced by the presence of context objects. Abstr. Psychon. Soc. 8, 109 (2003).
VanRullen, R. & Thorpe, S. J. The time course of visual processing: from early perception to decision-making. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 13, 454–461 (2001).
Potter, M. C. & Faulconer, B. A. Time to understand pictures and words. Nature 253, 437–438 (1975). This paper reports evidence for the speed with which a scene can be comprehended.
Ullman, S. High-Level Vision (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996).
Gibson, J. J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1979).
Moores, E., Laiti, L. & Chelazzi, L. Associative knowledge controls deployment of visual selective attention. Nature Neurosci. 6, 182–189 (2003).
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. E. & The PDP Research Group. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition Vol. 1 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1986).
Sigman, M. et al. On a common circle: natural scenes and Gestalt rules. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1935–1940 (2001).
McCauley, C. et al. Early extraction of meaning from pictures and its relation to conscious identification. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 6, 265–276 (1980).
Carr, T. H. et al. Words, pictures, and priming: on semantic activation, conscious identification, and the automaticity of information processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 8, 757–777 (1982).
Bar, M. & Biederman, I. Subliminal visual priming. Psychol. Sci. 9, 464–469 (1998).
Potter, M. C. Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 2, 509–522 (1976).
Intraub, H. Rapid conceptual identification of sequentially presented pictures. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 10, 115–125 (1981).
Loftus, G. R. in Eye Movements and Psychological Processes (eds Senders, J. & Monty, R.) 499–513 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1976).
Schyns, P. G. & Oliva, A. Flexible, diagnosticity-driven, rather than fixed, perceptually determined scale selection in scene and face recognition. Perception 26, 1027–1038 (1997).
Schyns, P. G. & Oliva, A. From blobs to boundary edges: evidence for time- and spatial- dependent scene recognition. Psychol. Sci. 5, 195–200 (1994). An elegant study showing that observers can categorize a scene briefly on the basis of the low-spatial-frequency content in the image.
Chun, M. M. & Jiang, Y. Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cogn. Psychol. 36, 28–71 (1998). A convincing demonstration that contextual information can be learned without awareness.
Chun, M. M. & Phelps, E. A. Memory deficits for implicit contextual information in amnesic subjects with hippocampal damage. Nature Neurosci. 2, 844–847 (1999).
Good, M., de Hoz, L. & Morris, R. G. Contingent versus incidental context processing during conditioning: dissociation after excitotoxic hippocampal plus dentate gyrus lesions. Hippocampus 8, 147–159 (1998).
Li, F. F. et al. Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 9596–9601 (2002).
Mathis, K. M. Semantic interference from objects both in and out of a scene context. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28, 171–182 (2002).
Kouider, S. & Dupoux, E. Partial awareness creates the 'illusion' of subliminal semantic priming. Psychol. Sci. 15, 75–81 (2004).
Tsivilis, D., Otten, L. J. & Rugg, M. D. Context effects on the neural correlates of recognition memory: an electrophysiological study. Neuron 31, 497–505 (2001).
Olson, I. R., Chun, M. M. & Allison, T. Contextual guidance of attention: human intracranial event-related potential evidence for feedback modulation in anatomically early temporally late stages of visual processing. Brain 124, 1417–1425 (2001).
Kassam, K. S., Aminoff, E. & Bar, M. Spatial-temporal cortical processing of contextual associations. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 128.8 (2003).
Squire, L. R., Stark, C. E. L. & Clark, R. E. The medial temporal lobe. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27, 279–306 (2004). A clear and thorough review of the controversy surrounding the functional distinction of the various sub-regions within the medial temporal lobe.
Brown, M. W. & Aggleton, J. P. Recognition memory: what are the roles of the perirhinal cortex and hippocampus? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 2, 51–61 (2001).
Eichenbaum, H. The hippocampus and declarative memory: cognitive mechanisms and neural codes. Behav. Brain Res. 127, 199–207 (2001).
Schacter, D. L. & Wagner, A. D. Medial temporal lobe activations in fMRI and PET studies of episodic encoding and retrieval. Hippocampus 9, 7–24 (1999).
Giovanello, K. S., Verfaellie, M. & Keane, M. M. Disproportionate deficit in associative recognition relative to item recognition in global amnesia. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 3, 186–194 (2003).
Stark, C. E. & Squire, L. R. Simple and associative recognition memory in the hippocampal region. Learn. Mem. 8, 190–197 (2001).
Aguirre, G. K. et al. The parahippocampus subserves topographical learning in man. Cereb. Cortex 6, 823–829 (1996).
Epstein, R. & Kanwisher, N. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 392, 598–601 (1998). This paper coined the term 'parahippocampal place area' (PPA).
Maguire, E. A. et al. Knowing where things are: parahippocampal involvement in encoding object locations in virtual large-scale space. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 10, 61–76 (1998).
Epstein, R., Graham, K. S. & Downing, P. E. Viewpoint-specific scene representations in human parahippocampal cortex. Neuron 37, 865–876 (2003).
Sanocki, T. & Epstein, W. Priming spatial layout of scenes. Psychol. Sci. 8, 374–378 (1997).
Christou, C. G. & Bülthoff, H. H. View dependence in scene recognition after active learning. Mem. Cogn. 27, 996–1007 (1999).
Levy, I. et al. Center-periphery organization of human object areas. Nature Neurosci. 4, 533–539 (2001). Provides a systematic alternative view of the organization of the visual cortex.
Epstein, R. A. The cortical basis of visual scene processing. Visual Cogn. (in the press).
Nakamura, K. et al. Functional delineation of the human occipito-temporal areas related to face and scene processing. A PET study. Brain 123, 1903–1912 (2000).
Stern, C. E. et al. The hippocampal formation participates in novel picture encoding: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 8660–8665 (1996).
Gaffan, D. Scene-specific memory for objects: a model of episodic memory impairment in monkeys with fornix transection. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 6, 305–320 (1994).
Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. Functional brain mapping during free viewing of natural scenes. Hum. Brain Mapp. 21, 75–85 (2004).
Bar, M. et al. Cortical mechanisms of explicit visual object recognition. Neuron 29, 529–535 (2001).
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207, 203–205 (1980).
Ganis, G. & Kutas, M. An electrophysiological study of scene effects on object identification. Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res. 16, 123–144 (2003). Reports interesting observations about the temporal dynamics of contextual analysis in scene recognition.
Smith, M. E., Stapleton, J. M. & Halgren, E. Human medial temporal lobe potentials evoked in memory and language tasks. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 63, 145–159 (1986).
McCarthy, G. et al. Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe: I. Intracranial distribution and neural generators. J. Neurosci. 15, 1080–1089 (1995).
Paivio, A. Imagery and Verbal Processes (Holt, Reinhart, & Winston, New York, 1971).
Paivio, A. Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status. Can. J. Psychol. 45, 255–287 (1991).
Glaser, W. R. Picture naming. Cognition 42, 61–105 (1992).
Riddoch, M. J. et al. Semantic systems or system? Neuropsychological evidence re-examined. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 5, 3–25 (1988).
Holcomb, P. J. & McPherson, W. B. Event-related brain potentials reflect semantic priming in an object decision task. Brain Cogn. 24, 259–276 (1994).
West, W. C. & Holcomb, P. J. Imaginal, semantic, and surface-level processing of concrete and abstract words: an electrophysiological investigation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12, 1024–1037 (2000).
Federmeier, K. D. & Kutas, M. Meaning and modality: influences of context, semantic memory organization, and perceptual predictability on picture processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 27, 202–224 (2001).
Vandenberghe, R. et al. Functional anatomy of a common semantic system for words and pictures. Nature 383, 254–256 (1996).
Smith, M. C. & Magee, L. E. Tracing the time course of picture — word processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 109, 373–392 (1980).
Glaser, W. R. & Dungelhoff, F. J. The time course of picture-word interference. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 10, 640–654 (1984).
Marinkovic, K. et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of modality-specific and supramodal word processing. Neuron 38, 487–497 (2003).
Sperling, R. et al. Putting names to faces: successful encoding of associative memories activates the anterior hippocampal formation. Neuroimage 20, 1400–1410 (2003).
Halgren, E. et al. Spatio-temporal stages in face and word processing. 2. Depth-recorded potentials in the human frontal and Rolandic cortices. J. Physiol. (Paris) 88, 51–80 (1994).
Dale, A. M. et al. Dynamic statistical parametric mapping: combining fMRI and MEG for high-resolution imaging of cortical activity. Neuron 26, 55–67 (2000). One of the best demonstrations of high-resolution spatiotemporal imaging, with a clear description of the theoretical background.
Kuperberg, G. R. et al. Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 272–293 (2003).
Burgess, N. et al. A temporoparietal and prefrontal network for retrieving the spatial context of lifelike events. Neuroimage 14, 439–453 (2001).
Simons, J. S. & Spiers, H. J. Prefrontal and medial temporal lobe interactions in long-term memory. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 4, 637–648 (2003).
Maguire, E. A. The retrosplenial contribution to human navigation: a review of lesion and neuroimaging findings. Scand. J. Psychol. 42, 225–238 (2001).
Cooper, B. G. & Mizumori, S. J. Temporary inactivation of the retrosplenial cortex causes a transient reorganization of spatial coding in the hippocampus. J. Neurosci. 21, 3986–4001 (2001).
Vann, S. D. & Aggleton, J. P. Extensive cytotoxic lesions of the rat retrosplenial cortex reveal consistent deficits on tasks that tax allocentric spatial memory. Behav. Neurosci. 116, 85–94 (2002).
Düzel, E. et al. Human hippocampal and parahippocampal activity during visual associative recognition memory for spatial and nonspatial stimulus configurations. J. Neurosci. 23, 9439–9444 (2003).
Burwell, R. D. et al. Corticohippocampal contributions to spatial and contextual learning. J. Neurosci. 24, 3826–3836 (2004).
Mendez, M. F. & Cherrier, M. M. Agnosia for scenes in topographagnosia. Neuropsychologia 41, 1387–1395 (2003).
Henke, K. et al. Human hippocampus associates information in memory. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5884–5889 (1999).
Jackson, O. & Schacter, D. L. Encoding activity in anterior medial temporal lobe supports subsequent associative recognition. Neuroimage 21, 456–462 (2004).
Hayes, S. M. et al. An fMRI study of episodic memory: retrieval of object, spatial, and temporal order information. Behav. Neurosci. (in the press).
Buckley, M. J. & Gaffan, D. Perirhinal cortex ablation impairs configural learning and paired-associate learning equally. Neuropsychologia 36, 535–546 (1998).
Insausti, R., Amaral, D. G. & Cowan, W. M. The entorhinal cortex of the monkey: II. Cortical afferents. J. Comp. Neurol. 264, 356–395 (1987).
Ranganath, C. & D'Esposito, M. Medial temporal lobe activity associated with active maintenance of novel information. Neuron 31, 865–873 (2001).
Valenstein, E. et al. Retrosplenial amnesia. Brain 110, 1631–1646 (1987).
Hirsh, R. The hippocampus and contextual retrieval of information from memory: a theory. Behav. Psychol. 12, 421–444 (1974).
Redish, A. D. The hippocampal debate: are we asking the right questions? Behav. Brain Res. 127, 81–98 (2001).
Miller, R. Cortico-Hippocampal Interplay and the Representation of Contexts in the Brain. Studies of Brain Function. Vol. 17 (Springer, Berlin, 1991).
O'Keefe, J. & Nadel, L. The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map (Clarendon, Oxford, 1978).
O'Keefe, J. & Dostrovsky, J. The hippocampus as a spatial map. Preliminary evidence from unit activity in the freely-moving rat. Brain Res. 34, 171–175 (1971).
Naya, Y., Yoshida, M. & Miyashita, Y. Forward processing of long-term associative memory in monkey inferotemporal cortex. J. Neurosci. 23, 2861–2871 (2003).
Naya, Y., Yoshida, M. & Miyashita, Y. Backward spreading of memory-retrieval signal in the primate temporal cortex. Science 291, 661–664 (2001).
Higuchi, S. & Miyashita, Y. Formation of mnemonic neuronal responses to visual paired associates in inferotemporal cortex is impaired by perirhinal and entorhinal lesions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 739–743 (1996).
Cox, D., Meyers, E. & Sinha, P. Contextually evoked object-specific responses in human visual cortex. Science 304, 115–117 (2004).
Torralba, A. Contextual priming for object detection. Int. J. Comput. Vision 53, 153–167 (2003).
Kersten, D., Mamassian, P. & Yuille, A. Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 271–304 (2004).
Hebb, D. O. The Organization of Behavior (Wiley, New York, 1949).
Dudai, Y. The Neurobiology of Memory (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1989).
McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychol. Rev. 88, 375–407 (1981).
Felleman, D. J. & Van Essen, V. C. Distributed hierarchical processing in primate visual cortex. Cereb. Cortex 1, 1–47 (1991).
Rempel-Clower, N. L. & Barbas, H. The laminar pattern of connections between prefrontal and anterior temporal cortices in the rhesus monkey is related to cortical structure and function. Cereb. Cortex 10, 851–865 (2000).
Ullman, S. Sequence seeking and counter streams: a computational model for bidirectional information flow in the visual cortex. Cereb. Cortex 1, 1–11 (1995). Provides a theory and compelling demonstrations for the existence and role of bidirectional processes in the cortex.
Grossberg, S. How does a brain build a cognitive code? Psychol. Rev. 87, 1–51 (1980).
Graboi, D. & Lisman, J. Recognition by top–down and bottom–up processing in cortex: the control of selective attention. J. Neurophysiol. 90, 798–810 (2003).
Merigan, W. H. & Maunsell, J. H. How parallel are the primate visual pathways? Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 16, 369–402 (1993).
Bullier, J. & Nowak, L. G. Parallel versus serial processing: new vistas on the distributed organization of the visual system. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 5, 497–503 (1995).
Schmid, A. M. & Bar, M. Selective involvement of prefrontal cortex in visual object recognition. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 161.8 (2002).
Schmid, A. M. & Bar, M. Activation of multiple candidate object representations during top–down facilitation of visual recognition. Soc. Neurosci. Abstr. 128.5 (2003).
Pandya, D. N., Seltzer, B. & Barbas, H. in Comparative Primate Biology, Vol. IV: Neurosciences (eds Staklis, H. D. & Erwin, J.) 39–80 (Alan R. Liss, New York, 1988).
Mannan, S. K., Ruddock, K. H. & Wooding, D. S. Fixation patterns made during brief examination of two-dimensional images. Perception 26, 1059–1072 (1997).
Tamura, H. & Tanaka, K. Visual response properties of cells in the ventral and dorsal parts of the macaque inferotemporal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 11, 384–399 (2001).
Sugase, Y. et al. Global and fine information coded by single neurons in the temporal visual cortex. Nature 400, 869–873 (1999).
Antes, J. R. Recognizing and localizing features in brief picture presentations. Mem. Cogn. 5, 155–161 (1977).
Nowak, L. G. & Bullier, J. in Cerebral Cortex: Extrastriate Cortex in Primate (eds Rockland, K., Kaas, J. & Peters, A.) 205–241 (Plenum, New York, 1997).
Torralba, A. & Oliva, A. Statistics of natural image categories. Network 14, 391–412 (2003).
Rensink, R., O'Regan, J. & Clark, J. To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol. Sci. 8, 368–373 (1997).
Simons, D. J. & Levin, D. T. Change blindness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1, 261–267 (1997).
Haber, R. N. & Schindler, R. M. Errors in proofreading: evidence of syntactic control of letter processing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perf. 7, 573–579 (1981).
Morris, A. L. & Harris, C. L. Sentence context, word recognition, and repetition blindness. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 28, 962–982 (2002).
Kanwisher, N. G. Repetition blindness: type recognition without token individuation. Cognition 27, 117–143 (1987).
Green, R. T. & Courtis, M. C. Information theory and figure perception: the metaphor that failed. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 25, 12–35 (1966).
I would like to thank members of my lab, E. Aminoff, H. Boshyan, M. Fenske, A. Ghuman, N. Gronau and K. Kassam, as well as A. Torralba, N. Donnelly, M. Chun, B. Rosen and A. Oliva for help with this article. Supported by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the James S. McDonnell Foundation (21st Century Science Research Award in Bridging Brain, Mind and Behavior) and the MIND Institute.
The author declares no competing financial interests.
- BASIC-LEVEL CONCEPTS
The level of abstraction that carries the most information, and at which objects are typically named most readily. For example, subjects would recognize an Australian Shepherd as a dog (that is, basic-level) more easily than as an animal (that is, superordinate-level) or as an Australian Shepherd (that is, subordinate-level).
An experience-based facilitation in perceiving a physical stimulus. In a typical object priming experiment, subjects are presented with stimuli (the primes) and their performance in object naming is recorded. Subsequently, subjects are presented with either the same stimuli or stimuli that have some defined relationship to the primes. Any stimulus-specific difference in performance is taken as a measure of priming.
(MEG). A non-invasive technology for functional brain mapping, which provides superior millisecond temporal resolution. It measures magnetic fields generated by electric currents from active neurons in the brain. By localizing the sources of these currents, MEG is used to reveal cortical function.
- THE N400 SIGNAL
Originally described as a negative deflection in the event-related potential waveform occurring approximately 400 ms following the onset of contextually incongruent words in a sentence. It has consistently been linked to semantic processing. Although it is probably one of the best neural signatures of contextual processing, its exact functional significance has yet to be elucidated.
- BAYESIAN METHODS
Use a priori probability distributions derived from experience to infer optimal expectations. They are based on Bayes' theorem, which can be seen as a rule for taking into account history information to produce a number representing the probability that a certain hypothesis is true.
- HEBBIAN LEARNING
Builds on Hebb's learning rule that the connections between two neurons will strengthen if the neurons fire simultaneously. The original Hebbian rule has serious limitations, but it is used as the basis for more powerful learning rules. From a neurophysiological perspective, Hebbian learning can be described as a mechanism that increases synaptic efficacy as a function of synchrony between pre- and postsynaptic activity.
About this article
Cite this article
Bar, M. Visual objects in context. Nat Rev Neurosci 5, 617–629 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1476
Visual expertise modulates baseline brain activity: a preliminary resting-state fMRI study using expertise model of radiologists
BMC Neuroscience (2022)
Neural Computing and Applications (2022)
Psychological Research (2022)
Multimedia Tools and Applications (2022)