Abstract
An ongoing debate concerns whether visual object representations are relatively abstract, relatively specific, both abstract and specific within a unified system, or abstract and specific in separate and dissociable neural subsystems. Most of the evidence for the dissociable subsystems theory has come from experiments that used familiar shapes, and the usage of familiar shapes has allowed for alternative explanations for the results. Thus, we examined abstract and specific visual working memory when the stimuli were novel objects viewed for the first and only time. When participants judged whether cues and probes belonged to the same abstract visual category, they performed more accurately when the probes were presented directly to the left hemisphere than when they were presented directly to the right hemisphere. In contrast, when participants judged whether or not cues and probes were the same specific visual exemplar, they performed more accurately when the probes were presented directly to the right hemisphere than when they were presented directly to the left hemisphere. For the first time, results from experiments using visual working memory tasks support the dissociable subsystems theory.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beeri, M. S., Vakil, E., Adonsky, A., & Levenkron, S. (2004). The role of the cerebral hemispheres in specific versus abstract priming. Laterality, 9, 313–323.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115–147.
Biederman, I., & Bar, M. (1999). One-shot viewpoint invariance in matching novel objects. Vision Research, 39, 2885–2899.
Bülthoff, H. H., & Edelman, S. (1992). Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 60–64.
Burgund, E. D., & Marsolek, C. J. (1997). Letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere with a form-specific perceptual identification task. Brain & Cognition, 35, 239–258.
Burgund, E. D., & Marsolek, C. J. (2000). Viewpoint-invariant and viewpoint-dependent recognition in dissociable neural subsystems. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 480–489.
Burgund, E. D., Marsolek, C. J., & Luciana, M. (2003). Serotonin levels influence patterns of repetition priming. Neuropsychology, 17, 161–170.
Christman, S., Kitterle, F. L., & Hellige, J. [B.] (1991). Hemispheric asymmetry in the processing of absolute versus relative spatial frequency. Brain & Cognition, 16, 62–73.
Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M., & Provost, J. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 25, 257–271.
Cooper, E. E., Biederman, I., & Hummel, J. E. (1992). Metric invariance in object recognition: A review and further evidence. dian Journal of Psychology, 46, 191–214.
Cooper, L. A., Schacter, D. L., Ballesteros, S., & Moore, C. (1992). Priming and recognition of transformed three-dimensional objects: Effects of size and reflection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 43–57.
Cowan, T. M. (1977). Organizing properties of impossible figures. Perception, 6, 41–56.
Curby, K. M., Hayward, W. G., & Gauthier, I. (2004). Laterality effects in the recognition of depth-rotated novel objects. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 100–111.
Deason, R. G., & Marsolek, C. J. (2005). A critical boundary to the left-hemisphere advantage in visual word processing. Brain & Language, 92, 251–261.
Draper, S. W. (1978). The Penrose triangle and a family of related figures. Perception, 7, 283–296.
Farah, M. J. (1992). Is an object an object an object? Cognitive and neuropsychological investigations of domain specificity in visual object recognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 164–169.
Gauthier, I., Hayward, W. G., Tarr, M. J., Anderson, A. W., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (2002). BOLD activity during mental rotation and viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Neuron, 34, 161–171.
Gauthier, I., James, T. W., Curby, K. M., & Tarr, M. J. (2003). The influence of conceptual knowledge on visual discrimination. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 507–523.
Hayward, W. G., & Williams, P. (2000). Viewpoint dependence and object discriminability. Psychological Science, 11, 7–12.
Hayworth, K. J., & Biederman, I. (2006). Neural evidence for intermediate representations in object recognition. Vision Research, 46, 4024–4031.
Hellige, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Huffman, D. A. (1971). Impossible objects as nonsense sentences. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence 6 (pp. 295–323). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99, 480–517.
Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1996). Categorical relations in shape perception. Spatial Vision, 10, 201–236.
Jonides, J., Lacey, S. C., & Nee, D. E. (2005). Processes of working memory in mind and brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 2–5.
Jordan, T. R., Patching, G. R., & Milner, A. D. (1998). Central fixations are inadequately controlled by instructions alone: Implications for studying cerebral asymmetry. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 371–391.
Kitterle, F. L., Christman, S., & Hellige, J. B. (1990). Hemispheric differences are found in the identification, but not the detection, of low versus high spatial frequencies. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 297–306.
Kitterle, F. L., & Selig, L. M. (1991). Visual field effects in the discrimination of sine-wave gratings. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 15–18.
Koutstaal, W., Wagner, A. D., Rotte, M., Maril, A., Buckner, R. L., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). Perceptual specificity in visual object priming: Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for a laterality difference in fusiform cortex. Neuropsychologia, 39, 184–199.
Marsolek, C. J. (1995). Abstract visual-form representations in the left cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 375–386.
Marsolek, C. J. (1999). Dissociable neural subsystems underlie abstract and specific object recognition. Psychological Science, 10, 111–118.
Marsolek, C. J. (2003). What is priming and why? In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 41–64). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marsolek, C. J. (2004). Abstractionist versus exemplar-based theories of visual word priming: A subsystems resolution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 1233–1259.
Marsolek, C. J., & Burgund, E. D. (1997). Computational analyses and hemispheric asymmetries in visual-form recognition. In S. Christman (Ed.), Cerebral asymmetries in sensory and perceptual processing (pp. 125–158). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Marsolek, C. J., & Burgund, E. D. (2003). Visual recognition and priming of incomplete objects: The influence of stimulus and task demands. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 139–156). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marsolek, C. J., & Burgund, E. D. (2005). Initial storage of unfamiliar objects: Examining memory stores with signal detection analyses. Acta Psychologica, 119, 81–106.
Marsolek, C. J., & Hudson, T. E. (1999). Task and stimulus demands influence letter-case-specific priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. Laterality, 4, 127–147.
Marsolek, C. J., Kosslyn, S. M., & Squire, L. R. (1992). Form-specific visual priming in the right cerebral hemisphere. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 492–508.
Marsolek, C. J., Nicholas, C. D., & Andresen, D. R. (2002). Interhemispheric communication of abstract and specific visual-form information. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1983–1999.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
Penrose, L. S., & Penrose, R. (1958). Impossible objects: A special type of visual illusion. British Journal of Psychology, 49, 31–33.
Pickering, E. C., & Schweinberger, S. R. (2003). N200, N250r, and N400 event-related brain potentials reveal three loci of repetition priming for familiar names. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 1298–1311.
Poggio, T., & Edelman, S. (1990). A network that learns to recognize three-dimensional objects. Nature, 343, 263–266.
Ranganath, C., & D’Esposito, M. (2005). Directing the mind’s eye: Prefrontal, inferior and medial temporal mechanisms for visual working memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 175–182.
Schacter, D. L., & Cooper, L. A. (1993). Implicit and explicit memory for novel visual objects: Structure and function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 995–1009.
Schacter, D. L., Cooper, L. A., & Delaney, S. M. (1990). Implicit memory for unfamiliar objects depends on access to structural descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 5–24.
Schacter, D. L., Cooper, L. A., Delaney, S. M., Peterson, M. A., & Tharan, M. (1991). Implicit memory for possible and impossible objects: Constraints on the construction of structural descriptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 3–19.
Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33, 5–42.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
Sugihara, K. (1982). Classification of impossible objects. Perception, 11, 65–74.
Tarr, M. J. (1995). Rotating objects to recognize them: A case study on the role of viewpoint dependency in the recognition of threedimensional objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 55–82.
Tarr, M. J., & Bülthoff, H. H. (1995). Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1494–1505.
Tarr, M. J., & Gauthier, I. (1998). Do viewpoint-dependent mechanisms generalize across members of a class? Cognition, 67, 73–110.
Tarr, M. J., Williams, P., Hayward, W. G., & Gauthier, I. (1998). Three-dimensional object recognition is viewpoint dependent. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 275–277.
Ullman, S. (1996). High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vaidya, C. J., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Verfaellie, M., Fleischman, D., & Askari, N. (1998). Font-specific priming following global amnesia and occipital lobe damage. Neuropsychology, 12, 183–192.
Wagemans, J., Van Gool, L., & Lamote, C. (1996). The visual system’s measurement of invariants need not itself be invariant. Psychological Science, 7, 232–236.
Wager, T. D., & Smith, E. E. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of working memory: A meta-analysis. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 255–274.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Funding for this work came from the Center for Cognitive Sciences in conjunction with the National Science Foundation (GER 9454163), the Office of the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota, and the National Institute of Mental Health, Grants MH53959 and MH60442.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when John Jonides was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marsolek, C.J., Burgund, E.D. Dissociable neural subsystems underlie visual working memory for abstract categories and specific exemplars. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 8, 17–24 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.1.17
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.8.1.17