The Neural Basis of the Object Concept in Ambiguous and Illusionary Perception
The Neural Basis of the Object Concept in Ambiguous and Illusionary Perception
复制标题
模糊和幻觉知觉中物体概念的神经基础
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Werning
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Maye;M. Werning
模糊和幻觉感知中客体概念的神经基础马库斯·维宁（werning@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de），德国杜塞尔多夫大学哲学系。1， D-40225德国杜塞尔多夫Alexander Maye （a.maye@uke.uni-hamburg.de）德国汉堡大学医学中心神经生理与病理生理学系，德国汉堡，D-20246 （Werning, 2003a）。这些数据提出了一个假设，即对象概念的神经基础是振荡函数，谓词概念的神经基础是特征特定神经元的集群（Werning, 2005b）。从格式塔心理学中，支配客体概念的原则是众所周知的。根据格式塔的两个原则，具有相似特征（相似的颜色/相似的方向）的空间近端元素很可能被视为一个对象，或者换句话说，由一个相同的对象概念表示。然而，大多数现实世界的物体在一个或多个特征维度上是不均匀的，例如，在一个物体内，照明、边缘方向和/或颜色可以变化。除了非均匀性，还有一些情况是模棱两可的刺激：两个不同的物体相互重叠，在一个或多个特征维度上相似，可以产生与具有非均匀性的单个物体相同的视网膜激活模式。此外，一些刺激作为一种错觉，在没有物体真正存在的地方唤起了对物体的知觉。非一致性、模糊性和错觉感知的案例不仅挑战了格式塔原则的适用性，而且为我们关于对象和谓词概念的神经基础的假设提供了一个有趣的测试。利用视觉皮层神经生理学中众所周知的结构原理，我们设计了一个用于多维特征绑定的振荡器网络，并将非均匀、模糊和虚幻的刺激作为输入。为了证实我们的假设，应该预期，即使在这些具有挑战性的条件下，(i)网络为人类主体通常感知的每个对象精确分配一个振荡函数（即，一个对象概念），（ii）响应对象属性的神经元簇（即，谓词概念）显示由代表所讨论对象的振荡函数呈现的活动。为了验证同步神经振荡构成物体皮层表征的假设，我们设计了一个振荡网络，并用非均匀的、模糊的和虚幻的物体进行刺激。可选择的感知可能性对应于网络动力学的众多特征模式。对该网络进行了语义解释。这些数据支持振荡函数是对象概念的神经基础，而特征响应神经元簇构成谓词概念的基础。认知是通过概念结构来定义的，(i)概念结构有内容，（ii）原则上（不一定是主体本身）可以用有客体和谓词的语言来表达。第一个条件来自于这样一个事实，即认知过程是认识论的，在这个意义上，真理传导的标准是为内容的承载者保留的。第二个条件基于认知以分类为前提的假设。如果有利于真理的过程不将对象归入类别，那么它实际上是无用的，也没有任何进化上的好处。要做到这一点，认知系统必须处理对象和谓词概念。客体概念在认知和感知中的作用不仅在发展文献中（由Scholl和Leslie回顾，1999），而且在神经建模中也引起了特别的兴趣。Von der Malsburg（1981）的假设认为，神经反应的同步振荡构成了一种机制，当这些特征由同一对象瞬时产生时，这种机制将特定特征神经元的反应结合在一起，这种假设经常被用于解释分布式反应的整合。在许多细胞记录实验（由Singer回顾，1999年）和与注意（Steinmetz等人，2000年）、感知（Fries, Roelf- sema, Engel, K¨onig, & Singer， 1997年）、期望（Riehle, Gr¨un, & Aertsen， 1997年）和心理表征相关的实验中，客体相关的神经同步已经被观察到。在一些实验中，例如对格子刺激的感知（Thiele & Stoner， 2003年），同步显然是不相关的。
The Neural Basis of the Object Concept in Ambiguous and Illusionary Perception Markus Werning (werning@phil.uni-duesseldorf.de) Department of Philosophy, Heinrich-Heine University D¨ usseldorf Universit¨atsstr. 1, D-40225 D¨ usseldorf, Germany Alexander Maye (a.maye@uke.uni-hamburg.de) Department of Neurophysiology and Pathophysiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf Martinistrase 52, D-20246 Hamburg, Germany resentation (Werning, 2003a). 1 Those data suggest the hypothesis that the neural basis of object con- cepts are oscillation functions and that the neural basis of predicate concepts are clusters of feature specific neurons (Werning, 2005b). From Gestalt psychology the principles govern- ing object concepts are well known. According to two of the Gestalt principles, spatially proximal el- ements with similar features (similar color / similar orientation) are likely to be perceived as one object or, in other word, represented by one and the same object concept. Most real-world objects, however, are non-uniform in one or more of their feature di- mensions, e.g., within one object illumination, edge orientation and/or color can vary. Aside from non- uniformity there are cases of ambiguous stimuli: two distinct objects that overlap with each other and are alike in one or more feature dimensions, can gener- ate the same retinal activation pattern as a single object with non-uniform properties. Furthermore, some stimuli as a matter of illusion arouse the per- ception of an object where no object really exists. Cases of non-uniformity, ambiguity and illusionary perception not only challenge the applicability of the Gestalt principles, but also provide an interesting test for our hypothesis about the neural basis of ob- ject and predicate concepts. Using structural principles well known from the neurophysiology of the visual cortex, we designed an oscillator network for multidimensional feature bind- ing and presented non-uniform, ambiguous and illu- sionary stimuli as input. To confirm our hypothesis, it should be expected that, even under these chal- lenging condition, (i) the network assigns exactly one oscillation function (i.e., one object concept) to each object normally perceived by human subjects and (ii) the clusters of neurons (i.e., the predicative con- cepts) responsive for properties of the object show activity that is rendered by the oscillation function representing the object in question. We will, further- more, take a look at the way the network manages to Abstract To test the hypothesis that synchronous neural os- cillation constitutes the cortical representation of objects, an oscillatory network is designed and stim- ulated with non-uniform, ambiguous and illusionary objects. Alternative perceptive possibilities corre- spond to a multitude of eigenmodes of the network dynamics. A semantic interpretation of the net- work is developed. The data support the view that oscillation functions are the neural basis of object concepts, while clusters of feature responsive neu- rons constitute the basis of predicate concepts. Introduction Cognition is defined over conceptual structures, (i) which have content and (ii) are in principle (not necessarily by the subject itself) expressible by lan- guages with object and predicate terms. The first condition derives from the fact that cognitive pro- cesses are epistemic in the sense that the criterion of truth-conduciveness, which is reserved for bearers of content, applies. The second condition grounds in the assumption that cognition presupposes catego- rization. Truth-conducive processes would be prac- tically useless and without any evolutionary benefit if they did not subsume objects under categories. To do so the cognitive system must dispose over object and predicate concepts. The role of the object concept in cognition and perception has been of particular interest not only in the developmental literature (reviewed by Scholl & Leslie, 1999), but also in neural modeling. Von der Malsburg’s (1981) supposition that the syn- chronous oscillation of neural responses constitutes a mechanism that binds the responses of feature specific neurons when these features are instanti- ated by the same object has been frequently applied to explain the integration of distributed responses. Object-related neural synchrony has been observed in numerous cell recording experiments (reviewed by Singer, 1999) and experiments related to attention (Steinmetz et al., 2000), perception (Fries, Roelf- sema, Engel, K¨ onig, & Singer, 1997), expectation (Riehle, Gr¨ un, & Aertsen, 1997) and mental rep- In some experiments, e.g., on the perception of plaid stimuli (Thiele & Stoner, 2003) synchronization was ap- parently not relevant.
影响因子：
1.5
作者：
Werning
通讯作者：
Werning