Spatial frequency channels mediate a mental ruler for spatial vision in humans

  1. Shijia Zhang
  2. Ce Mo
  3. Lei Mo
  4. Fang Fang

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

An intriguing mystery concerning spatial vision is that the perceived spatial property information of the same stimulus varies in different contexts. While previous findings are suggestive of an adaptable mental ruler by which the raw retinal signals are flexibly scaled according to the prevailing context, whether and how such a putative mental ruler is utilized by the visual brain remain largely unknown. We hypothesized that the putative mental ruler was represented by multiple differently-tuned spatial frequency (SF) channels. A finer division of the ruler, signaled by dominance of the high-SF channels, is translated to a wider-spread topography of neural activation via concentration of neuronal receptive fields, causing perceptual inflation. Combining psychophysics and fMRI, we found that modulation of SF channels caused a systematic distortion in perceived separation, a representative fundamental spatial property, and a global displacement of population receptive fields (pRF) in primary visual cortex. Computational modeling further showed that both the perceptual distortion and the global pRF displacement were functionally coupled with the magnitude of SF channel modulation. Our findings reveal, for the first time, an adjustable mental ruler that commonly governs the perception of spatial property information in different contexts, and suggest a cognitive scaling system based on SF channel reweighting and displacement of neuronal RFs.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/14034905.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Highly appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Highly supported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Somewhat appropriate and clear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Highly likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, it's of high quality
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? Yes, as it is

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2024.10.15.615126 on bioRxiv