Feedback of peripheral saccade targets to early foveal cortex
- Vision and Computational Cognition Group, Max Planck Institute of Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Germany
- Department of Psychology, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany
- Department of Medicine, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany
- Spinoza Center for Neuroimaging, KNAW Netherlands, Netherlands
- Computational Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Netherlands
- Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije University Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany
- Exzellenzcluster Science of Intelligence, Technical University Berlin, Germany
- Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin, Germany
- Center for Mind, Brain and Behavior, Universities of Marburg, Giessen, and Darmstadt, Germany, Germany
Figures
Figure 1
Experimental setup.
(A) Illustration of one block of the experimental and control conditions, respectively. During each block in the experimental condition, a peripheral saccade target was shown, which participants were instructed to fixate. The target disappeared before it could be foveated, and once fixation was achieved, a new target appeared, until the block was over (duration: 11 s). The timing of target appearance and disappearance from the experimental condition was recorded and used in the control condition, where targets appeared at fixation. (B) Depiction of the four stimuli used in the experiment, which were matched in either visual shape (horizontal/vertical) or semantic category (animal/instrument). Each stimulus appeared equally often in both conditions. (C) Histogram of the gaze distance from the stimulus right after stimulus disappearance, including all trial from all 28 participants . The blocks in which the stimulus edge may have appeared in the participants’ fovea during at least one saccade were excluded.
Figure 2
Foveal feedback can be decoded from V1.
(A) Average decoding accuracy over all pairwise comparisons for control (t(27) = 19.92, p<0.001, mean = 84.06%) and experimental (t(27) = 8.81, p<0.001, mean = 57.43%) conditions and for cross-decoding from experimental to control condition (t(27) = 5.22, p<0.001, mean = 57.2%). (B) Average decoding accuracies for all early visual areas as a function of eccentricity for both experimental and control conditions. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. Note that the graphs have different scales of decoding accuracy. The central eccentricities (1–5 dva) were measured using a retinotopic localizer, the outer ones (6–10 dva) were inferred from structural data using Neuropythy (Benson and Winawer, 2018).
Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Foveal feedback is sensitive to stimulus shape, not semantic category.
(A) Schematic depiction of comparisons to assess the information content of the neural representations. Comparisons across categories assess similarity of representations in terms of visual stimulus properties, with lower decoding accuracies indicating coding for visual information. Similarly, comparing across shape assesses categorical information. Comparing across both serves as a baseline, showing how high decoding accuracy is between maximally different stimuli. (B) Decoding accuracies for all comparisons using data from foveal regions of V1 and from the lateral occipital area (LO) (n=28). Error bars represent the standard error from the mean. Note that the graphs have different y-axes of decoding accuracy.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
Decoding stimulus content from all early foveal areas.
Decoding accuracies for all comparisons using data from foveal regions of V1, V2, and V3 for all 28 participants. Error bars represent the standard error from the mean. These graphs show that the results from V1 outlined in this publication generalize to other regions of the early visual cortex.
Figure 4 with 1 supplement
Correlation of foveal decoding with region of interest (ROI) activation.
(A) Cortical masks used in the ROI analyses. These masks were generated using Neurosynth (Yarkoni et al., 2011) with the keyword ‘eye movements.’ For later analyses, only the 100 most activating voxels were selected in each area. (B) Results of the ROI analyses comparing neural activation as a function of foveal and peripheral decoding in three key areas related to eye movements (n=28). Activation in the intraparietal sulcus (IPS) was significantly higher in association with foveal decoding compared to peripheral decoding (t(27) = 2.53, p=0.026, difference = 4.22).
Figure 4—figure supplement 1
Parametric modulation analysis in the control condition.
We conducted the same parametric modulation analysis on the control condition (n=28). Foveal decoding was associated with significantly decreased activation in frontal eye field (FEF) (t(27) = –4.62, p<0.001, difference = 10.36) and intraparietal sulcus (IPS) (t(27) = –3.61, p=0.004, difference = 11.6), likely because eye movements in the control condition decrease foveal stimulation. We also found increased activation in lateral occipital area (LO) (t(27) = 5.11, p<0.001, difference = 16.89). Peripheral decoding was not associated with significant changes in any of the region of interests (ROIs) (FEF: t(27) = 0.49, p=1.0; IPS: t(27) = 1.35, p=0.56; LO: t(27) = 2.43, p=0.07).
Additional files
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Feedback of peripheral saccade targets to early foveal cortex
eLife 14:RP107053.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.107053.3
