. 2018 May;29(5):845-856.
Epub 2018 Mar 29.
Visual Memories Bypass Normalization
Free PMC article
Item in Clipboard
Visual Memories Bypass Normalization
2018 May .
Free PMC article
How distinct are visual memory representations from visual perception? Although evidence suggests that briefly remembered stimuli are represented within early visual cortices, the degree to which these memory traces resemble true visual representations remains something of a mystery. Here, we tested whether both visual memory and perception succumb to a seemingly ubiquitous neural computation: normalization. Observers were asked to remember the contrast of visual stimuli, which were pitted against each other to promote normalization either in perception or in visual memory. Our results revealed robust normalization between visual representations in perception, yet no signature of normalization occurring between working memory stores-neither between representations in memory nor between memory representations and visual inputs. These results provide unique insight into the nature of visual memory representations, illustrating that visual memory representations follow a different set of computational rules, bypassing normalization, a canonical visual computation.
normalization; psychophysics; visual memory; visual perception.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.
Stimuli and example trial sequences from Experiment 1. Each stimulus (a) was
composed of one of three different surround configurations at five different center
contrast levels (10%–75% contrast). Example trial sequences are shown for the
simultaneous (b) and the sequential (c) conditions. Observers viewed a center
stimulus for 1,000 ms, which varied from trial to trial in contrast and orientation.
In both conditions, observers were required to match the contrast of the probe to
the remembered center stimulus after a 2,200-ms retention interval. During the
simultaneous condition, the center stimulus was enveloped by a full-contrast
surround stimulus, which had orientation content that was either collinearly or
orthogonally oriented to the center. In the sequential condition, this surround
stimulus was moved into the retention interval. After every interval in which a
stimulus could appear, a counterphase flickering, full-contrast checkerboard masking
stimulus was presented to reduce any lingering afterimages. Stimuli are modified for
Results from Experiment 1. Perceived contrast of the center stimuli is shown
separately for the (a) simultaneous and (b) sequential conditions. Observers’
estimates of the center stimulus contrast were near veridical (indicated by the dashed
line). Data points reflect the apparent contrast estimates across all contrast levels,
averaged over observers (
N = 12), for the three different surround
conditions (collinear, orthogonal, and no surround). Error bars denote ±1
SEM (note that in some cases the error bars are smaller than the
data points). Schematics above the graphs illustrate the general experimental design.
Normalization strength estimates (c) were derived from the normalization model.
Parameter estimates illustrate the influence of the surround (collinear and
orthogonal) on perceived contrast of the center stimulus for both the simultaneous and
sequential conditions (see the Supplemental Material available online for additional parameter
estimates). Error bars denote ±1 SEM.
Stimuli and example trial sequences from Experiment 2. Stimuli (a) were composed of
a center and a surround stimulus that both varied in contrast. Each component could
be one of four contrast levels (10%–75% contrast). Example trial sequences are shown
for the simultaneous (b) and sequential (c) conditions. The contrast of both center
and surround stimuli had to be remembered, and after a retention period, observers
were asked to match the contrast of the probe to either the center or surround that
had been held in memory. Counterphase flickering, full-contrast masks were presented
to reduce any lingering afterimages. Stimuli are modified for illustrative
Results from Experiment 2. Perceived contrast of the center stimuli is shown
separately for the (a) simultaneous and (b) sequential conditions. Data points reflect
the apparent center contrast estimates across all contrast levels, averaged over
N = 10), for each surround contrast condition (10%–75%
surround). Dashed black lines indicate veridical contrast estimation. Error bars
denote ±1 SEM (note that in some cases the error bars are smaller
than the data points). Schematics above the graphs illustrate the general experimental
design. Normalization strength estimates (c) were derived from the normalization
model. Parameter estimates illustrate the influence of the surround on perceived
contrast of the center stimulus for both the simultaneous and sequential conditions
(perception = blue; visual memory = red; see the Supplemental Material for additional parameter estimates). Error bars
denote ±1 SEM.
Visual long-term memory stores high-fidelity representations of observed actions.
Psychol Sci. 2013 Apr;24(4):403-11. doi: 10.1177/0956797612457375. Epub 2013 Feb 22.
Psychol Sci. 2013.
[Visual representation of natural scenes in flicker changes].
Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2010 Aug;81(3):210-7. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.81.210.
Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2010.
Visual Working Memory Is Independent of the Cortical Spacing Between Memoranda.
J Neurosci. 2018 Mar 21;38(12):3116-3123. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2645-17.2017. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
J Neurosci. 2018.
29459370 Free PMC article.
A two-level hierarchical framework of visual short-term memory.
J Vis. 2018 Sep 4;18(9):2. doi: 10.1167/18.9.2.
J Vis. 2018.
A review of visual memory capacity: Beyond individual items and toward structured representations.
J Vis. 2011 May 26;11(5):4. doi: 10.1167/11.5.4.
J Vis. 2011.
21617025 Free PMC article.
Normalization governs attentional modulation within human visual cortex.
Nat Commun. 2019 Dec 11;10(1):5660. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13597-1.
Nat Commun. 2019.
31827078 Free PMC article.
Attention induces surround suppression in visual working memory.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Dec;26(6):1925-1932. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01624-7.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019.
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Memory, Short-Term / physiology*
Retention, Psychology / physiology*
Visual Perception / physiology*