title: Simple line drawings suffice for functional MRI decoding of natural scene categories.
abstract: Humans are remarkably efficient at categorizing natural scenes. In fact, scene categories can be decoded from functional MRI (fMRI) data throughout the ventral visual cortex, including the primary visual cortex, the parahippocampal place area (PPA), and the retrosplenial cortex (RSC). Here we ask whether, and where, we can still decode scene category if we reduce the scenes to mere lines. We collected fMRI data while participants viewed photographs and line drawings of beaches, city streets, forests, highways, mountains, and offices. Despite the marked difference in scene statistics, we were able to decode scene category from fMRI data for line drawings just as well as from activity for color photographs, in primary visual cortex through PPA and RSC. Even more remarkably, in PPA and RSC, error patterns for decoding from line drawings were very similar to those from color photographs. These data suggest that, in these regions, the information used to distinguish scene category is similar for line drawings and photographs. To determine the relative contributions of local and global structure to the human ability to categorize scenes, we selectively removed long or short contours from the line drawings. In a category-matching task, participants performed significantly worse when long contours were removed than when short contours were removed. We conclude that global scene structure, which is preserved in line drawings, plays an integral part in representing scene categories.
authors: Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. bernhardt-walther.1@osu.edu
authors: Dirk B
authors: DB
authors: Walther
authors: Barry
authors: B
authors: Chai
authors: Eamon
authors: E
authors: Caddigan
authors: Diane M
authors: DM
authors: Beck
authors: Li
authors: L
authors: Fei-Fei
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 1980;31:309-41
references: 7362215
references: J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Nov;12(6):1013-23
references: 11177421
references: J Physiol. 1962 Jan;160:106-54
references: 14449617
references: Nat Neurosci. 2005 May;8(5):679-85
references: 15852014
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980 Mar;6(2):174-215
references: 7373248
references: Nature. 1998 Apr 9;392(6676):598-601
references: 9560155
references: Comput Biomed Res. 1996 Jun;29(3):162-73
references: 8812068
references: Cogn Psychol. 1988 Jan;20(1):38-64
references: 3338267
references: J Neurophysiol. 1999 Nov;82(5):2490-502
references: 10561421
references: Psychol Sci. 2009 Apr;20(4):464-72
references: 19399976
references: Cogn Psychol. 1982 Apr;14(2):143-77
references: 7083801
references: Neuron. 2003 Apr 24;38(2):347-58
references: 12718867
references: Cereb Cortex. 2011 Aug;21(8):1738-46
references: 21148087
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jul 9;99(14):9596-601
references: 12077298
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1976 Sep;2(5):509-22
references: 1003124
references: J Vis. 2007 Jan 31;7(1):10
references: 17461678
references: Curr Biol. 1998 Apr 23;8(9):R303-4
references: 9560330
references: J Neurosci. 2009 Aug 26;29(34):10573-81
references: 19710310
references: J Neurophysiol. 1996 Oct;76(4):2718-39
references: 8899641
references: Curr Biol. 2009 Jun 9;19(11):943-7
references: 19446454
references: Vision Res. 1994 Apr;34(7):885-912
references: 8160402
references: Cereb Cortex. 2007 Jul;17(7):1680-93
references: 16997905
references: Eur J Neurosci. 1993 May 1;5(5):509-24
references: 8261126
references: Nature. 2009 Jul 2;460(7251):94-7
references: 19506558