4.8 Article

Cortical idiosyncrasies predict the perception of object size

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms12110

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ERC Starting Grant [310829]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Ha 7574/1-1]
  3. UCL Graduate School Bridging Fund
  4. Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund
  5. UK MRC Career Development Award [MR/K024817/1]
  6. ERC Starting Grant [310829]
  7. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Ha 7574/1-1]
  8. UCL Graduate School Bridging Fund
  9. Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support Fund
  10. UK MRC Career Development Award [MR/K024817/1]
  11. Medical Research Council [MR/K024817/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  12. MRC [MR/K024817/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  13. European Research Council (ERC) [310829] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Perception is subjective. Even basic judgments, like those of visual object size, vary substantially between observers and also across the visual field within the same observer. The way in which the visual system determines the size of objects remains unclear, however. We hypothesize that object size is inferred from neuronal population activity in V1 and predict that idiosyncrasies in cortical functional architecture should therefore explain individual differences in size judgments. Here we show results from novel behavioural methods and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) demonstrating that biases in size perception are correlated with the spatial tuning of neuronal populations in healthy volunteers. To explain this relationship, we formulate a population read-out model that directly links the spatial distribution of V1 representations to our perceptual experience of visual size. Taken together, our results suggest that the individual perception of simple stimuli is warped by idiosyncrasies in visual cortical organization.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available