Dissociable neural subsystems underlie visual working memory for abstract categories and specific exemplars

Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 17-24

  Marsolek, Chad J ^a   Burgund, E Darcy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEFT HEMISPHERE; MALE; NERVE CELL NETWORK; RIGHT HEMISPHERE; SYSTEMS THEORY; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORKING MEMORY; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ASSOCIATION; BRAIN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; NERVE TRACT; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; REFERENCE VALUE; SHORT TERM MEMORY;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); FORM PERCEPTION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; NEURAL PATHWAYS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REFERENCE VALUES;

EID: 43549102891     PISSN: 15307026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/CABN.8.1.17     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. BEERI, M. S., VAKIL, E., ADONSKY, A., & LEVENKRON, S. (2004). The role of the cerebral hemispheres in specific versus abstract priming. Laterality, 9, 313-323.
2. BIEDERMAN, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
3. BIEDERMAN, I., & BAR, M. (1999). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Research, 39, 2885-2899.
4. BÜLTHOFF, H. H., & EDELMAN, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60-64.
5. BURGUND, E. D., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (1997). Letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere with a form-specific perceptual identification task. Brain & Cognition, 35, 239-258.
6. BURGUND, E. D., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (2000). Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 480-489.
7. BURGUND, E. D., MARSOLEK, C. J., & LUCIANA, M. (2003). Serotonin levels influence patterns of repetition priming. Neuropsychology, 17, 161-170.
8. CHRISTMAN, S., KITTERLE, F. L., & HELLIGE, J. [B.] (1991). Hemispheric asymmetry in the processing of absolute versus relative spatial frequency. Brain & Cognition, 16, 62-73.
9. COHEN, J. D., MACWHINNEY, B., FLATT, M., & PROVOST, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257-271.
10. COOPER, E. E., BIEDERMAN, I., & HUMMEL, J. E. (1992). Metric invariance in object recognition: A review and further evidence. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 191-214.
11. COOPER, L. A., SCHACTER, D. L., BALLESTEROS, S., & MOORE, C. (1992). Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: Effects of size and reflection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 43-57.
12. COWAN, T. M. (1977). Organizing properties of impossible figures. Perception, 6, 41-56.
13. CURBY, K. M., HAYWARD, W. G., & GAUTHIER, I. (2004). Laterality effects in the recognition of depth-rotated novel objects. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 100-111.
14. DEASON, R. G., & MARSOLEK, C. J. (2005). A critical boundary to the left-hemisphere advantage in visual word processing. Brain & Language, 92, 251-261.
15. DRAPER, S. W. (1978). The Penrose triangle and a family of related figures. Perception, 7, 283-296.
16. FARAH, M. J. (1992). Is an object an object an object? Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain specificity in visual object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 164-169.
17. GAUTHIER, I., HAYWARD, W. G., TARR, M. J., ANDERSON, A. W., SKUDLARSKI, P., & GORE, J. C. (2002). BOLD activity during mental rotation and viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Neuron, 34, 161-171.
18. GAUTHIER, I., JAMES, T. W., CURBY, K. M., & TARR, M. J. (2003). The influence of conceptual knowledge on visual discrimination. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 507-523.
19. HAYWARD, W. G., & WILLIAMS, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11, 7-12.
20. HAYWORTH, K. J., & BIEDERMAN, I. (2006). Neural evidence for intermediate representations in object recognition. Vision Research, 46, 4024-4031.
21. HELLIGE, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric asymmetry: What's right and what's left. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22. HUFFMAN, D. A. (1971). Impossible objects as nonsense sentences. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 6 (pp. 295-323). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
23. HUMMEL, J. E., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480-517.
24. HUMMEL, J. E., & STANKIEWICZ, B. J. (1996). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201-236.
25. JONIDES, J., LACEY, S. C., & NEE, D. E. (2005). Processes of working memory in mind and brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 2-5.
26. JORDAN, T. R., PATCHING, G. R., & MILNER, A. D. (1998). Central fixations are inadequately controlled by instructions alone: Implications for studying cerebral asymmetry. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 371-391.
27. KITTERLE, F. L., CHRISTMAN, S., & HELLIGE, J. B. (1990). Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 297-306.
28. KITTERLE, F. L., & SELIG, L. M. (1991). Visual field effects in the discrimination of sine-wave gratings. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 15-18.
29. KOUTSTAAL, W., WAGNER, A. D., ROTTE, M., MARIL, A., BUCKNER, R. L., & SCHACTER, D. L. (2001). Perceptual specificity in visual object priming: Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for a laterality difference in fusiform cortex. Neuropsychologia, 39, 184-199.
30. MARSOLEK, C. J. (1995). Abstract visual-form representations in the left cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 375-386.
31. MARSOLEK, C. J. (1999). Dissociable neural subsystems underlie abstract and specific object recognition. Psychological Science, 10, 111-118.
32. MARSOLEK, C. J. (2003). What is priming and why? In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 41-64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. MARSOLEK, C. J. (2004). Abstractionist versus exemplar-based theories of visual word priming: A subsystems resolution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 1233-1259.
34. MARSOLEK, C. J., & BURGUND, E. D. (1997). Computational analyses and hemispheric asymmetries in visual-form recognition. In S. Christman (Ed.), Cerebral asymmetries in sensory and perceptual processing (pp. 125-158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
35. MARSOLEK, C. J., & BURGUND, E. D. (2003). Visual recognition and priming of incomplete objects: The influence of stimulus and task demands. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 139-156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. MARSOLEK, C. J., & BURGUND, E. D. (2005). Initial storage of unfamiliar objects: Examining memory stores with signal detection analyses. Acta Psychologica, 119, 81-106.
37. MARSOLEK, C. J., & HUDSON, T. E. (1999). Task and stimulus demands influence letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. Laterality, 4, 127-147.
38. MARSOLEK, C. J., KOSSLYN, S. M., & SQUIRE, L. R. (1992). Form-specific visual priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 492-508.
39. MARSOLEK, C. J., NICHOLAS, C. D., & ANDRESEN, D. R. (2002). Interhemispheric communication of abstract and specific visual-form information. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1983-1999.
40. OLDFIELD, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.
41. PENROSE, L. S., & PENROSE, R. (1958). Impossible objects: A special type of visual illusion. British Journal of Psychology, 49, 31-33.
42. PICKERING, E. C., & SCHWEINBERGER, S. R. (2003). N200, N250r, and N400 event-related brain potentials reveal three loci of repetition priming for familiar names. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1298-1311.
43. POGGIO, T., & EDELMAN, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263-266.
44. RANGANATH, C., & D'ESPOSITO, M. (2005). Directing the mind's eye: Prefrontal, inferior and medial temporal mechanisms for visual working memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 175-182.
45. SCHACTER, D. L., & COOPER, L. A. (1993). Implicit and explicit memory for novel visual objects: Structure and function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 995-1009.
46. SCHACTER, D. L., COOPER, L. A., & DELANEY, S. M. (1990). Implicit memory for unfamiliar objects depends on access to structural descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 5-24.
47. SCHACTER, D. L., COOPER, L. A., DELANEY, S. M., PETERSON, M. A., & THARAN, M. (1991). Implicit memory for possible and impossible objects: Constraints on the construction of structural descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 3-19.
48. SMITH, E. E., & JONIDES, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 5-42.
49. SNODGRASS, J. G., & CORWIN, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34-50.
50. SUGIHARA, K. (1982). Classification of impossible objects. Perception, 11, 65-74.
51. TARR, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of three-dimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 55-82.
52. TARR, M. J., & BÜLTHOFF, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1494-1505.
53. TARR, M. J., & GAUTHIER, I. (1998). Do viewpoint-dependent mechanisms generalize across members of a class? Cognition, 67, 73-110.
54. TARR, M. J., WILLIAMS, P., HAYWARD, W. G., & GAUTHIER, I. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 275-277.
55. ULLMAN, S. (1996). High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. VAIDYA, C. J., GABRIELI, J. D. E., VERFAELLIE, M., FLEISCHMAN, D., & ASKARI, N. (1998). Font-specific priming following global amnesia and occipital lobe damage. Neuropsychology, 12, 183-192.
57. WAGEMANS, J., VAN GOOL, L., & LAMOTE, C. (1996). The visual system's measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant. Psychological Science, 7, 232-236.
58. WAGER, T. D., & SMITH, E. E. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of working memory: A meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 255-274.