Visual Selective Behavior Can Be Triggered by a Feed-Forward Process
Abstract
The ventral visual pathway implements object recognition and categorization in a hierarchy of processing areas with neuronal selectivities of increasing complexity. The presence of massive feedback connections within this hierarchy raises the possibility that normal visual processing relies on the use of computational loops. It is not known, however, whether object recognition can be performed at all without such loops (i.e., in a purely feed-forward mode). By analyzing the time course of reaction times in a masked natural scene categorization paradigm, we show that the human visual system can generate selective motor responses based on a single feed-forward pass. We confirm these results using a more constrained letter discrimination task, in which the rapid succession of a target and mask is actually perceived as a distractor. We show that a masked stimulus presented for only 26 msec—and often not consciously perceived—can fully determine the earliest selective motor responses: The neural representations of the stimulus and mask are thus kept separated during a short period corresponding to the feed-forward “sweep.” Therefore, feedback loops do not appear to be “mandatory” for visual processing. Rather, we found that such loops allow the masked stimulus to reverberate in the visual system and affect behavior for nearly 150 msec after the feed-forward sweep.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The accuracy of the human observers is well within the range of data previously obtained with go/no-go tasks on similar tasks.
“The accuracy of the human observers is well within the range of data previously obtained with go/no-go tasks on similar tasks (30, 31, 33).”
From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [33]
Animal- vs. non-animal-recognition is a well established experiment.
“A well established experiment is an animal- vs. non-animal-recognition task (30-34).”
From A feedforward architecture accounts for rapid categorization (2007) · cites this paper as [33]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 140
- Authors
- VanRullen, R., & Koch, C.
- Affiliations
- California Institute of Technology
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Publisher
- MIT Press
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 209-217
- ISSN
- 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
- 1530-8898
- OpenAlex
- W2141932928
- Cited by
- 140
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 2.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
- Keywords
- feedforward processing, feedback loops, ventral stream, object recognition, natural scene categorization, letter discrimination, masked stimuli, reaction time, visual perception, conscious perception, hierarchical visual processing
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Discrimination Learning, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Time, Visual Pathways, Feedback, Psychological
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