Enhanced visual exploration for real objects compared to pictures during free viewing in the macaque monkey

Naturalistic Object Representations Depend on Distance and Size Cues

Egocentric distance and real-world size are important cues for object perception and action. Nevertheless, most studies of human vision rely on two-dimensional pictorial stimuli that convey ambiguous distance and size information. Here, we use fMRI to test whether pictures are represented differently in the human brain from real, tangible objects that convey unambiguous distance and size cues. Participants directly viewed stimuli in two display formats (real objects and matched printed pictures of those objects) presented at different egocentric distances (near and far). We measured the effects of format and distance on fMRI response amplitudes and response patterns. We found that fMRI response amplitudes in the lateral occipital and posterior parietal cortices were stronger overall for real objects than for pictures. In these areas and many others, including regions involved in action guidance, responses to real objects were stronger for near vs. far stimuli, whereas distance had little effect on responses to pictures-suggesting that distance determines relevance to action for real objects, but not for pictures. Although stimulus distance especially influenced response patterns in dorsal areas that operate in the service of visually guided action, distance also modulated representations in ventral cortex, where object responses are thought to remain invariant across contextual changes. We observed object size representations for both stimulus formats in ventral cortex but predominantly only for real objects in dorsal cortex. Together, these results demonstrate that whether brain responses reflect physical object characteristics depends on whether the experimental stimuli convey unambiguous information about those characteristics.

Significance Statement

Classic frameworks of vision attribute perception of inherent object characteristics, such as size, to the ventral visual pathway, and processing of spatial characteristics relevant to action, such as distance, to the dorsal visual pathway. However, these frameworks are based on studies that used projected images of objects whose actual size and distance from the observer were ambiguous. Here, we find that when object size and distance information in the stimulus is less ambiguous, these characteristics are widely represented in both visual pathways. Our results provide valuable new insights into the brain representations of objects and their various physical attributes in the context of naturalistic vision.

Internal representations of the canonical real-world distance of objects

In the real world, every object has its canonical distance from observers. For example, airplanes are usually far away from us, whereas eyeglasses are close to us. Do we have an internal representation of the canonical real-world distance of objects in our cognitive system? If we do, does the canonical distance influence the perceived size of an object? Here, we conducted two experiments to address these questions. In Experiment 1, we first asked participants to rate the canonical distance of objects. Participants gave consistent ratings to each object. Then, pairs of object images were presented one by one in a trial, and participants were asked to rate the distance of the second object (i.e., a priming paradigm). We found that the rating of the perceived distance of the target object was modulated by the canonical real-world distance of the prime. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to judge the perceived size of canonically near or far objects that were presented at the converging end (i.e., far location) or the opening end (i.e., near location) of a background image with converging lines. We found that regardless of the presentation location, participants perceived the canonically near object as smaller than the canonically far object even though their retinal and real-world sizes were matched. In all, our results suggest that we have an internal representation of the canonical real-world distance of objects, which affects the perceived distance of subsequent objects and the perceived size of the objects themselves.

The Treachery of Images: How Realism Influences Brain and Behavior

Although the cognitive sciences aim to ultimately understand behavior and brain function in the real world, for historical and practical reasons, the field has relied heavily on artificial stimuli, typically pictures. We review a growing body of evidence that both behavior and brain function differ between image proxies and real, tangible objects. We also propose a new framework for immersive neuroscience to combine two approaches: (i) the traditional build-up approach of gradually combining simplified stimuli, tasks, and processes; and (ii) a newer tear-down approach that begins with reality and compelling simulations such as virtual reality to determine which elements critically affect behavior and brain processing.

Affect-Driven Attention Biases as Animal Welfare Indicators: Review and Methods

Attention bias describes the differential allocation of attention towards one stimulus compared to others. In humans, this bias can be mediated by the observer's affective state and is implicated in the onset and maintenance of affective disorders such as anxiety. Affect-driven attention biases (ADABs) have also been identified in a few other species. Here, we review the literature on ADABs in animals and discuss their utility as welfare indicators. Despite a limited research effort, several studies have found that negative affective states modulate attention to negative (i.e., threatening) cues. ADABs influenced by positive-valence states have also been documented in animals. We discuss methods for measuring ADAB and conclude that looking time, dot-probe, and emotional spatial cueing paradigms are particularly promising. Research is needed to test them with a wider range of species, investigate attentional scope as an indicator of affect, and explore the possible causative role of attention biases in determining animal wellbeing. Finally, we argue that ADABs might not be best-utilized as indicators of general valence, but instead to reveal specific emotions, motivations, aversions, and preferences. Paying attention to the human literature could facilitate these advances.

Divergent Solutions to Visual Problem Solving across Mammalian Species

Our understanding of the neurobiological underpinnings of learning and behavior relies on the use of invasive techniques, which necessitate the use of animal models. However, when different species learn the same task, to what degree are they actually producing the same behavior and engaging homologous neural circuitry? This question has received virtually no recent attention, even as the most powerful new methodologies for measuring and perturbing the nervous system have become increasingly dependent on the use of murine species. Here, we test humans, rats, monkeys, and an evolutionarily intermediate species, tree shrews, on a three alternative, forced choice, visual contrast discrimination task. As anticipated, learning rate, peak performance, and transfer across contrasts was lower in the rat compared to the other species. More interestingly, rats exhibited two major behavioral peculiarities: while monkeys and tree shrews based their choices largely on visual information, rats tended to base their choices on past reward history. Furthermore, as the task became more difficult, rats largely disengaged from the visual stimulus, reverting to innate spatial predispositions in order to collect rewards near chance probability. Our findings highlight the limitation of muridae as models for translational research, at least in the area of visually based decision making.

Graspable Objects Grab Attention More Than Images Do

The opportunity an object presents for action is known as an affordance. A basic assumption in previous research was that images of objects, which do not afford physical action, elicit effects on attention and behavior comparable with those of real-world tangible objects. Using a flanker task, we compared interference effects between real graspable objects and matched 2-D or 3-D images of the items. Compared with both 2-D and 3-D images, real objects yielded slower response times overall and elicited greater flanker interference effects. When the real objects were positioned out of reach or behind a transparent barrier, the pattern of response times and interference effects was comparable with that for 2-D images. Graspable objects exert a more powerful influence on attention and manual responses than images because of the affordances they offer for manual interaction. These results raise questions about whether images are suitable proxies for real objects in psychological research.

The real deal: Willingness-to-pay and satiety expectations are greater for real foods versus their images

Laboratory studies of human dietary choice have relied on computerized two-dimensional (2D) images as stimuli, whereas in everyday life, consumers make decisions in the context of real foods that have actual caloric content and afford grasping and consumption. Surprisingly, few studies have compared whether real foods are valued more than 2D images of foods, and in the studies that have, differences in the stimuli and testing conditions could have resulted in inflated bids for the real foods. Moreover, although the caloric content of food images has been shown to influence valuation, no studies to date have investigated whether 'real food exposure effects' on valuation reflect greater sensitivity to the caloric content of real foods versus images. Here, we compared willingness-to-pay (WTP) for, and expectations about satiety after consuming, everyday snack foods that were displayed as real foods versus 2D images. Critically, our 2D images were matched closely to the real foods for size, background, illumination, and apparent distance, and trial presentation and stimulus timing were identical across conditions. We used linear mixed effects modeling to determine whether effects of display format were modulated by food preference and the caloric content of the foods. Compared to food images, observers were willing to pay 6.62% more for (Experiment 1) and believed that they would feel more satiated after consuming (Experiment 2), foods displayed as real objects. Moreover, these effects appeared to be consistent across food preference, caloric content, as well as observers' estimates of the caloric content of the foods. Together, our results confirm that consumers' perception and valuation of everyday foods is influenced by the format in which they are displayed. Our findings raise important new insights into the factors that shape dietary choice in real-world contexts and highlight potential avenues for improving public health approaches to diet and obesity.

Experimental setting affects the performance of guppies in a numerical discrimination task

A recent study found that guppies (Poecilia reticulata) can be trained to discriminate 4 versus 5 objects, a numerical discrimination typically achieved only by some mammals and birds. In that study, guppies were required to discriminate between two patches of small objects on the bottom of the tank that they could remove to find a food reward. It is not clear whether this species possesses exceptional numerical accuracy compared with the other ectothermic vertebrates or whether its remarkable performance was due to a specific predisposition to discriminate between differences in the quality of patches while foraging. To disentangle these possibilities, we trained guppies to the same numerical discriminations with a more conventional two-choice discrimination task. Stimuli were sets of dots presented on a computer screen, and the subjects received a food reward upon approaching the set with the larger numerosity. Though the cognitive problem was identical in the two experiments, the change in the experimental setting led to a much poorer performance as most fish failed even the 2 versus 3 discrimination. In four additional experiments, we varied the duration of the decision time, the type of stimuli, the length of training, and whether correction was allowed in order to identify the factors responsible for the difference. None of these parameters succeeded in increasing the performance to the level of the previous study, although the group trained with three-dimensional stimuli learned the easiest numerical task. We suggest that the different results with the two experimental settings might be due to constraints on learning and that guppies might be prepared to accurately estimate patch quality during foraging but not to learn an abstract stimulus-reward association.