Cited by 153Memory and Neural MechanismsSpatial Cognition and NavigationVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Visual Scene Processing in Familiar and Unfamiliar Environments

Epstein, Russell A., Higgins, J. Stephen, Jablonski, Karen, Feiler, Alana M.·2007·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Humans and animals use information obtained from the local visual scene to orient themselves in the wider world. Although neural systems involved in scene perception have been identified, the extent to which processing in these systems is affected by previous experience is unclear. We addressed this issue by scanning subjects with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while they viewed photographs of familiar and unfamiliar locations. Scene-selective regions in parahippocampal cortex (the parahippocampal place area, or PPA), retrosplenial cortex (RSC), and the transverse occipital sulcus (TOS) responded more strongly to images of familiar locations than to images of unfamiliar locations with the strongest effects (>50% increase) in RSC. Examination of fMRI repetition suppression (RS) effects indicated that images of familiar and unfamiliar locations were processed with the same degree of viewpoint specificity; however, increased viewpoint invariance was observed as individual scenes became more familiar over the course of a scan session. Surprisingly, these within-scan-session viewpoint-invariant RS effects were only observed when scenes were repeated across different trials but not when scenes were repeated within a trial, suggesting that within- and between-trial RS effects may index different aspects of visual scene processing. The sensitivity to environmental familiarity observed in the PPA, RSC, and TOS supports earlier claims that these regions mediate the extraction of navigationally relevant spatial information from visual scenes. As locations become familiar, the neural representations of these locations become enriched, but the viewpoint invariance of these representations does not change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.00003.2007

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Epstein, R. A., Higgins, J. S., Jablonski, K., & Feiler, A. M.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2007-05
Volume
97
Issue
5
Pages
3670-3683
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2107417492
Cited by
153
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 15
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (EY016464, R01EY016464)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
visual scene processing, environmental familiarity, parahippocampal place area, retrosplenial cortex, transverse occipital sulcus, repetition suppression, viewpoint invariance, spatial navigation, scene perception
MeSH terms
Brain Mapping, Environment, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Visual Cortex, Recognition, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review