The Ventral Visual Pathway Represents Animal Appearance over Animacy, Unlike Human Behavior and Deep Neural Networks.
MVPA
animacy
deep neural networks
fMRI
object representations
occipitotemporal cortex
Journal
The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience
ISSN: 1529-2401
Titre abrégé: J Neurosci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8102140
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 08 2019
14 08 2019
Historique:
received:
05
07
2018
revised:
09
04
2019
accepted:
06
05
2019
pubmed:
15
6
2019
medline:
23
6
2020
entrez:
15
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent studies showed agreement between how the human brain and neural networks represent objects, suggesting that we might start to understand the underlying computations. However, we know that the human brain is prone to biases at many perceptual and cognitive levels, often shaped by learning history and evolutionary constraints. Here, we explore one such perceptual phenomenon, perceiving animacy, and use the performance of neural networks as a benchmark. We performed an fMRI study that dissociated object appearance (what an object looks like) from object category (animate or inanimate) by constructing a stimulus set that includes animate objects (e.g., a cow), typical inanimate objects (e.g., a mug), and, crucially, inanimate objects that look like the animate objects (e.g., a cow mug). Behavioral judgments and deep neural networks categorized images mainly by animacy, setting all objects (lookalike and inanimate) apart from the animate ones. In contrast, activity patterns in ventral occipitotemporal cortex (VTC) were better explained by object appearance: animals and lookalikes were similarly represented and separated from the inanimate objects. Furthermore, the appearance of an object interfered with proper object identification, such as failing to signal that a cow mug is a mug. The preference in VTC to represent a lookalike as animate was even present when participants performed a task requiring them to report the lookalikes as inanimate. In conclusion, VTC representations, in contrast to neural networks, fail to represent objects when visual appearance is dissociated from animacy, probably due to a preferred processing of visual features typical of animate objects.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31196934
pii: JNEUROSCI.1714-18.2019
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1714-18.2019
pmc: PMC6697402
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6513-6525Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 the authors.
Références
Neuron. 1999 Sep;24(1):187-203
pubmed: 10677037
Perception. 2000;29(8):943-51
pubmed: 11145086
Science. 2001 Sep 28;293(5539):2470-3
pubmed: 11577239
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 7;103(10):3863-8
pubmed: 16537458
Nat Neurosci. 2007 Jun;10(6):685-6
pubmed: 17486103
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 16;104(42):16598-603
pubmed: 17909181
Neuroimage. 2009 Jan 1;44(1):83-98
pubmed: 18501637
J Neurosci. 2008 Oct 1;28(40):10111-23
pubmed: 18829969
Front Syst Neurosci. 2008 Nov 24;2:4
pubmed: 19104670
Neuron. 2008 Dec 26;60(6):1126-41
pubmed: 19109916
Neuroreport. 2009 Mar 4;20(4):403-7
pubmed: 19218867
Neuroimage. 2010 Feb 1;49(3):1943-8
pubmed: 19285144
Cogn Psychol. 2009 Sep;59(2):154-79
pubmed: 19500784
Neuroimage. 2010 Feb 15;49(4):3414-25
pubmed: 19922804
Psychol Sci. 2010 Dec;21(12):1845-53
pubmed: 21078895
Neuron. 2012 Feb 9;73(3):415-34
pubmed: 22325196
J Neurosci. 2012 Feb 22;32(8):2608-18
pubmed: 22357845
Neuron. 2012 Jun 21;74(6):1114-24
pubmed: 22726840
Front Psychol. 2012 Jul 25;3:245
pubmed: 22848204
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 04;8(7):e68910
pubmed: 23861951
PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(8):e1003167
pubmed: 23950700
J Cogn Neurosci. 2014 Jan;26(1):132-42
pubmed: 24001004
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Mar 11;111(10):E962-71
pubmed: 24567402
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 10;111(23):8619-24
pubmed: 24812127
J Neurosci. 2014 May 14;34(20):6721-35
pubmed: 24828628
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jun 17;111(24):8955-60
pubmed: 24889618
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2014 Aug;15(8):536-48
pubmed: 24962370
J Neurosci. 2014 Jun 25;34(26):8837-44
pubmed: 24966383
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Aug 07;10(8):e1003724
pubmed: 25101625
J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Apr;27(4):665-78
pubmed: 25269114
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Nov 06;10(11):e1003915
pubmed: 25375136
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Dec 18;10(12):e1003963
pubmed: 25521294
J Neurosci. 2015 Jul 8;35(27):10005-14
pubmed: 26157000
Neuropsychologia. 2016 Mar;83:201-226
pubmed: 26493748
Nat Neurosci. 2015 Dec;18(12):1728-30
pubmed: 26502262
Neuroimage. 2016 Aug 15;137:188-200
pubmed: 26707889
J Neurosci. 2016 Jan 13;36(2):432-44
pubmed: 26758835
J Cogn Neurosci. 2016 May;28(5):680-92
pubmed: 26765944
PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Apr 28;12(4):e1004896
pubmed: 27124699
Front Neuroinform. 2016 Jul 22;10:27
pubmed: 27499741
Sci Rep. 2016 Sep 07;6:32672
pubmed: 27601096
Front Comput Neurosci. 2016 Aug 31;10:92
pubmed: 27642281
J Neurophysiol. 2017 Jan 1;117(1):388-402
pubmed: 27832600
Neuroimage. 2017 Mar 1;148:197-200
pubmed: 28069538
Cereb Cortex. 2017 Jan 1;27(1):310-321
pubmed: 28108492
Neuroimage. 2017 Jul 15;155:437-449
pubmed: 28389381
Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2015 Nov 24;1:417-446
pubmed: 28532370
Neuropsychologia. 2017 Oct;105:153-164
pubmed: 28619529
eNeuro. 2017 Jun 27;4(3):
pubmed: 28660250
Elife. 2018 Jan 31;7:
pubmed: 29384473
J Neurophysiol. 1972 Jan;35(1):96-111
pubmed: 4621506
J Neurosci. 1984 Aug;4(8):2051-62
pubmed: 6470767
J Neurosci. 1997 Jun 1;17(11):4302-11
pubmed: 9151747
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
pubmed: 9176952
J Cogn Neurosci. 1998 Jan;10(1):1-34
pubmed: 9526080
Neuron. 1998 Jul;21(1):191-202
pubmed: 9697863