The time course and specificity of perceptual deterioration.
Repeated within-day testing on a texture discrimination task leads to retinotopically specific decreases in performance. Although perceptual learning has been shown to be highly specific to the retinotopic location and characteristics of the trained stimulus, the specificity of perceptual deterioration has not been studied. We investigated the similarities between learning and deterioration by examining whether deterioration transfers to new distractor or target orientations or to the untrained eye. Participants performed a texture discrimination task in three one-hour sessions. We tested the specificity of deterioration in the final session by switching either the orientation of the background or the target elements by 90 degrees. We found that performance deteriorated steadily both within and across the first two sessions and was specific to the target but not the distractor orientation. In a separate experiment, we found that deterioration transferred to the untrained eye. Changes in performance were independent of reported sleepiness and awareness of stimulus changes, arguing against the possibility that perceptual deterioration is due to general fatigue. Rather, we hypothesize that perceptual deterioration may be caused by changes in the ability for attention to selectively enhance the responses of relatively low-level orientation-selective sensory neurons, possibly within the primary visual cortex. Further, the differences in specificity profiles between learning and deterioration suggest separate underlying mechanisms that occur within the same cortical area.
Mednick
Sara C
SC
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, SNL-B, 10010 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037-1099, USA. smednick@salk.edu
Arman
A Cyrus
AC
Boynton
Geoffrey M
GM
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D006801:Humans; D014793:Visual Cortex / Q000502:physiology*; D014796:Visual Perception / Q000502:physiology*
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991 Jun 1;88(11):4966-70
2052578
Nature. 1993 Sep 16;365(6443):250-2
8371779
Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jul;5(7):677-81
12032542
Spat Vis. 1996;10(1):51-8
8817771
Vision Res. 2004 Oct;44(23):2737-44
15358068
Neuroreport. 2000 Apr 27;11(6):1285-8
10817608
Science. 1999 Dec 24;286(5449):2504-7
10617465
J Vis. 2002;2(2):190-203
12678592
Neuroreport. 1998 Nov 16;9(16):3571-5
9858362
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 16;96(6):3314-9
10077681
Nat Neurosci. 1999 Apr;2(4):364-9
10204544
J Exp Psychol Appl. 2004 Mar;10(1):42-54
15053701
Nat Neurosci. 2004 Oct;7(10):1055-6
15361880
Nature. 2002 Feb 14;415(6873):790-3
11845209
Nat Neurosci. 2004 Jun;7(6):651-7
15156149
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jun 24;100(13):7425-7
12810942
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jun 24;100(13):7942-6
12771383
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Jul 9;93(14):7358-62
8692998
Neuropsychologia. 1990;28(6):573-84
2118613
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 May-Jun;21(3):134-43
15375344
Nat Neurosci. 2000 Dec;3(12):1237-8
11100141
J Vis. 2004 Mar 17;4(3):169-82
15086307
Vision Res. 2003 Jun;43(13):1465-72
12767314
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
9176953
Vision Res. 1995 Jun;35(12):1679-90
7660576
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 1998 Apr;6(4):347-9
9593989
Percept Psychophys. 1997 Jan;59(1):60-72
9038408
Nat Neurosci. 2003 Jul;6(7):697-8
12819785
Neurology. 1996 Aug;47(2):508-20
8757029
Mov Disord. 2001 Jan;16(1):94-9
11215600
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Feb 16;96(4):1663-8
9990081
J Physiol. 1995 Mar 15;483 ( Pt 3):797-810
7776259
Brain. 2003 Oct;126(Pt 10):2175-82
12821512
Vision Res. 1995 Feb;35(4):519-27
7900292
Nature. 1980 Sep 4;287(5777):43-4
7412873