The occipital place area represents the local elements of scenes

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Frederik S. Kamps, Emory University; Joshua B. Julian, University of Pennsylvania; Jonas Kubilius, KU Leuven; Nancy Kanwisher, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Daniel Dilks, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2016-05-15
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Publication Version: Author Accepted Manuscript (After Peer Review)
• Copyright Statement: © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.062
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: NeuroImage
• ISSN: 1053-8119
• Volume: 132
• Start Page: 417
• End Page: 424
• Grant/Funding Information: The work was supported by Emory College, Emory University (DD), National Institute of Child Health and Human Development grant T32HD071845 (FK), and National Institutes of Health grant EY013455 (NK).
• Keywords: TOS; OPA; RSC; PPA; fMRI; scene perception
• Research Categories: Psychology, General

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies have identified three scene-selective regions in human cortex: parahippocampal place area (PPA), retrosplenial complex (RSC), and occipital place area (OPA). However, precisely what scene information each region represents in not clear, especially for the least studied, more posterior OPA. Here we hypothesized that OPA represents local elements of scenes within two independent, yet complementary scene descriptors: spatial boundary (i.e., the layout of external surfaces) and scene content (e.g., internal objects). If OPA processes the local elements of spatial boundary information, then it should respond to these local elements (e.g., walls) themselves, regardless of their spatial arrangement. Indeed, we found OPA, but not PPA or RSC, responded similarly to images of intact rooms and these same rooms in which the surfaces were fractured and rearranged, disrupting the spatial boundary. Next, if OPA represents the local elements of scene content information, then it should respond more when more such local elements (e.g., furniture) are present. Indeed, we found that OPA, but not PPA or RSC, responded more to multiple than single pieces of furniture. Taken together, these findings reveal that OPA analyzes local scene elements – both in spatial boundary and scene content representation – while PPA and RSC represent global scene properties.