1 / 32

fMRI Reveals a Dissociation Between Object Grasping and Object Recognition

fMRI Reveals a Dissociation Between Object Grasping and Object Recognition. Culham et al. (submitted). Overview. Background Methods Results Conclusions Discussion Contrasts & baselines. Background. Visual systems. Dual Stream Theory. “ACTION” (grasping). “PERCEPTION”

tavi
Download Presentation

fMRI Reveals a Dissociation Between Object Grasping and Object Recognition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. fMRI Reveals a Dissociation Between Object Grasping and Object Recognition Culham et al. (submitted)

  2. Overview • Background • Methods • Results • Conclusions • Discussion • Contrasts & baselines

  3. Background • Visual systems

  4. Dual Stream Theory “ACTION” (grasping) “PERCEPTION” (1-back recognition)

  5. fMRI Studies • LO = lateral occipital complex • Recognition area in ventral stream • AIP = anterior intraparietal complex • Grasping area in dorsal stream

  6. Methods • Participants • N=7, age 23-33, R-handed, fMRI experienced • Design • 1 scan session of grasping task • 1 scan session of recognition task

  7. Grasping Task

  8. Grasparatus

  9. Recognition Task • Intact Objects • Grayscale • Line Drawings • Familiar and Novel • Scrambled

  10. Event-Related fMRI • Removed motion-related artifact • Blocked response types • Grasp, Reach, (No response) • ITI = 14 s

  11. Imaging & Analyses • 4-Tesla system, head coil • 13 T*-2 slices every 2 s • Parallel to calcarine sulcus • T1 structural images • Cortical surface-based analysis

  12. Results • Functionally define ROIs • Reverse comparisons

  13. AIP in Grasping (fig2a)

  14. AIP Grasping: Time Course(fig4a - Left IPS time course)

  15. AIP Grasping: Representative Individual (fig3b)

  16. LO in Object Recognition (fig2b)

  17. LO Recognition(fig4d – Left time course) Intact Scrambled

  18. LO Recognition: Object Type(fig5a)

  19. Cross Comparisons • AIP in Recognition • LO in Grasping

  20. AIP in Recognition(fig4b – Right IPS data) Intact Scrambled

  21. AIP Recognition: Object Type (fig5b)

  22. Recognition: LO vs AIP (fig3c)

  23. Grasp & Reach vs ITI (fig3a)

  24. LO: Grasping = Reaching(fig4c – Left data) Grasping Reaching

  25. Comparison Map (fig3d)

  26. Discussion • Is AIP activated by Intact-Scrambled? • Is LO activated by Grasping-Reaching? • Results support hypotheses • How much do they specify the processes unique to AIP and LO?

  27. AIP: Contrasts in Grasping Task • Grasp -Reach • G requires info to preshape hand • More goal directed(?) • G&R – dark ITI • Both above baseline • Why this baseline? • What happened to the ‘no response’ condition (Blue LED)?

  28. LO: Contrasts in 1-Back Task • Intact-Scrambled • ID and meaning • Recognition – a misnomer? • Novel > Familiar; Adaptation of LO • I&S – fixation on dot • Only I greater • Alternative baselines – role of 1-back? • Scrambled-Intact • Rationale? Interpretation?

  29. Task Comparisons “AIP is activated more strongly by grasping, when object information is required to preshape the hand, but does not respond to images of objects in the absence of action” “LO is activated more strongly by objects than scrambled control images, but shows no enhanced activity when real objects are the targets for grasping compared to reaching”

  30. “Real” vs Images • Potential for grasping a requirement of AIP? • Different stimulus types complicate direct comparisons • Recognition of ‘real’ rectangles • LO adaptation • Grasping of complex objects (e.g., tools) • AIP in viewing of graspable objects

  31. AIP: Scrambled-Intact • Attentional and spatial demands • S>I? • I>S? (Kourtzi & Kanwisher, 2000) • Is G-R accounted for by attentional demands? • Overlap of G-R and S-C?

  32. Conclusions • Was the study objective addressed? • Did results support hypotheses? • How conclusive are the findings? • How/why might additional and/or alternative contrast analyses be valuable?

More Related