Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Neuroscience and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: Eighteenth Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2009

Open Access Poster presentation

Object-based biasing for attentional control of gaze: a comparison of biologically plausible mechanisms

Alexander J Cope, Jonathan M Chambers and Kevin N Gurney*

Author affiliations

Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S10 2TN, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

Citation and License

BMC Neuroscience 2009, 10(Suppl 1):P19  doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-S1-P19


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/10/S1/P19


Published:13 July 2009

© 2009 Cope et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Introduction

In the visual system, attending to important objects in the visual field relies on the transfer of top-down, object-based task information to the spatially organised areas of cortex. How this occurs and the method by which this information can influence the dorsal stream and redirect gaze are not well understood. Current models of the ventral stream mostly focus on the feed-forward mechanisms involved and current feedback models do not seem to address the issue of object-space binding in a comprehensive and plausible manner.

Methods

We investigated these questions using the following modeling framework. A bidirectional, ventral stream object recognition hierarchy up to anterior inferior temporal cortex (AIT) from primary visual cortex (V1) and a model of dorsal stream to frontal eye fields (FEF) with our previously developed oculomotor system [1]. Selection is performed in both the object-based mapping of AIT [2] and the spatial mapping of FEF [3] by basal ganglia loops [4]. Modeling of the ventral stream consists of a hierarchy of increasingly spatially invariant cortical areas linked by both feed-forward excitatory and feedback connections. Within each receptive field, there is a competition to represent the strongest and thus most likely representation for that region, which can be biased by the feedback from higher visual areas. Three models of feedback attention mechanism were tested: additive feedback, shunting (multiplicative) feedback and a shunt "gating" of feedback by feed-forward. The model was tested using a simple visual world (colored "flags") that nevertheless challenged all the main competencies being investigated. Performance was measured by (i) eliciting saccadic "behavior" in simulated visual search with different numbers of distractors, and (ii) target segmentation in cluttered scenes within a fixed time window.

Results

In the target segmentation task, the additive feedback model consistently fails to bind the AIT representation of the object to the correct location on the visual field. The shunting model was able to segment 58% of scenes while the gating model was most successful (83%) (Figure 1). We then took the most successful (gating) model and challenged it with a conjunction visual search task. Here, by simulating models trained and naïve to the target stimulus, we showed that subsequent learning of a combined representation of an untrained target stimulus can explain the experimentally observed decrease in the slope of reaction time against number of distractors for that target (Figure 2) [5].

thumbnailFigure 1. Performance of the mechanisms in cluttered scenes.

thumbnailFigure 2. Reaction time slope for visual conjunction search using gated mechanism both naïve (circles) and trained (squares).

References

  1. Chambers JM: Deciding where to look: A study of action selection in the oculomotor system. Psychology PhD University of Sheffield; 2007.

  2. Chelazzi L, Miller EK, Duncan J, Desimone R: A neural basis for visual-search in inferior temporal cortex.

    Nature 1993, 363:345-347. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  3. Thompson KG, Bichot NP, Sato TR: Frontal eye field activity before visual search errors reveals the integration of bottom-up and top-down salience.

    J Neurophysiol 2005, 93:337-351. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  4. Gurney K, Prescott TJ, Redgrave P: A computational model of action selection in the basal ganglia. II. Analysis and simulation of behaviour.

    Biol Cybern 2001, 84:411-423. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

  5. Ellison A, Walsh V: Perceptual learning in visual search: some evidence of specificities.

    Vision Res 1998, 38:333-345. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL