Spatial relations are commonly divided in two global classes. Categorical relations concern abstract relations which define areas of spatial equivalence, whereas coordinate relations are metric and concern exact distances. Categorical and coordinate relation processing are thought to rely on at least partially separate neurocognitive mechanisms, as reflected by differential lateralization patterns, in particular in the parietal cortex. In this study we address this textbook principle from a new angle. We studied retinotopic activation in early visual cortex, as a reflection of attentional distribution, in a spatial working memory task with either a categorical or a coordinate instruction. Participants were asked to memorize a dot position, with regard to a central cross, and to indicate whether a subsequent dot position matched the first dot position, either categorically (opposite quadrant of the cross) or coordinately (same distance to the centre of the cross). BOLD responses across the retinotopic maps of V1, V2, and V3 indicate that the spatial distribution of cortical activity was different for categorical and coordinate instructions throughout the retention interval; a more local focus was found during categorical processing, whereas focus was more global for coordinate processing. This effect was strongest for V3, approached significance in V2 and was absent in V1. Furthermore, during stimulus presentation the two instructions led to different levels of activation in V3 during stimulus encoding; a stronger increase in activity was found for categorical processing. Together this is the first demonstration that instructions for specific types of spatial relations may yield distinct attentional patterns which are already reflected in activity early in the visual cortex.
References
[1]
Kosslyn SM (1987) Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: A computational analysis. Psychol Rev 94: 148–175.
[2]
Jager G, Postma A (2003) On the hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial relations: A review of the current evidence. Neuropsychologia 41: 504–515.
[3]
Hellige JB, Michimata C (1989) Categorization versus distance: Hemispheric differences for processing spatial information. Mem Cognition 17: 770–776.
[4]
Bruyer R, Scailquin J-C, Coibion P (1997) Dissociation between categorical and coordinate spatial computations: Modulation by the cerebral hemispheres, task properties, mode of response, and age. Brain Cognition 33: 245–277.
[5]
Banich MT, Federmeier KD (1999) Categorical and metric spatial processes distinguished by task demands and practice. J Cognitive Neurosci 11: 153–166.
[6]
Van der Ham IJM, Van Wezel RJA, Oleksiak A, Postma A (2007) The time course of hemispheric differences in categorical and coordinate spatial processing. Neuropsychologia 45: 2492–2498.
[7]
Baciu M, Koenig O, Vernier M–P, Bedoin N, Rubin C, et al. (1999) Categorical and coordinate spatial relations: fMRI evidence for hemispheric specialization. NeuroReport 10: 1373–1378.
[8]
Trojano L, Conson M, Maffei R, Grossi D (2006) Categorical and coordinate spatial processing in the imagery domain investigated by rTMS. Neuropsychologia 44: 1569–1574.
[9]
Van der Ham IJM, Raemaekers M, Van Wezel RJA, Oleksiak A, Postma A (2009) Categorical and coordinate spatial relations in working memory: An fMRI study. Brain Res 1297: 70–79.
[10]
Kosslyn SM, Koenig O, Barrett A, Backer Cave C, Tang J, et al. (1989) Evidence for two types of spatial representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. J Exp Psychol Human 15: 723–735.
[11]
Laeng B, Peters M (1995) Cerebral lateralization for the processing of spatial coordinates and categories in left- and right-handers. Neuropsychologia 33: 421–439.
[12]
Awh E, Smith EE, Jonides J (1995) Human rehearsal processes and the frontal lobes. Pet evidence. In J Grafman K Holyoak & F Boller (Eds.), Annals of the New York academy of sciences. Structure and functions of the human prefrontal cortex. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. pp 97–119.
[13]
Awh E, Jonides J, Reuter-Lorenz PA (1998) Rehearsal in spatial working memory. J Exp Psychol Human 24: 780–790.
[14]
Awh E, Jonides J (1998) Spatial selective attention and spatial working memory. In R Parasuraman (Ed.), The attentive brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp 353–380.
[15]
Corbetta M (1998) Frontoparietal cortical networks for directing attention and the eye to visual locations: Identical, independent, or overlapping neural systems? P Natl Acad Sci USA 95: 831–838.
[16]
Munneke J, Heslenfeld DJ, Theeuwes J (2010) Spatial working memory effects in early visual cortex. Brain Cognition 72: 368–377.
[17]
Silver MA, Ress D, Heeger DJ (2007) Neural correlates of sustained spatial attention in human early visual cortex. J Neurophysiol 97: 229–237.
[18]
Ivry RB, Robertson LC (1997) The two sides of perception. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[19]
Van Kleeck M (1989) Hemispheric differences in global versus local processing of hierarchical visual stimuli by normal subjects: New data and a meta-analysis of previous studies. Neuropsychologia 27: 1165–1178.
[20]
Okubo M, Laeng B, Saneyoshi A, Michimata C (2010) Exogenous attention differentially modulates the processing of categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Acta Psychol 135: 1–11.
[21]
Laeng B, Okubo M, Saneyoshi A, Michimata C (2011) Processing spatial relations with different apertures of attention. Cognitive Sci 35: 297–329.
[22]
Borst G, Kosslyn SM (2010) Varying the scope of attention alters the encoding of categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Neuropsychologia 48: 2769–2772.
[23]
Van der Ham IJM, Postma A (2010) What is the nature of spatial abstraction? A comparison of verbal and visuospatial categorical relations. Mem Cognition 38: 582–590.
[24]
Van der Ham IJM, Borst G (2011) Individual differences in spatial relation processing: effects of strategy, ability, and gender. Brain Cognition.
[25]
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97–113.
[26]
Ramsey NF, van den Brink JS, van Muiswinkel AM, Folkers PJ, Moonen CT, et al. (1998) Phase navigator correction in 3D fMRI improves detection of brain activation: quantitative assessment with a graded motor activation procedure. NeuroImage 8: 240–248.
[27]
Van Gelderen P, Ramsey NF, Liu G, Duyn JH, Frank JA, et al. (1995) Three-dimensional functional magnetic resonance imaging of human brain on a clinical 1.5T scanner. P Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 6906–6910.
Van Essen DC, Drury HA, Dickson J, Harwell J, Hanlon D, et al. (2001) An integrated software suite for surface-based analyses of cerebral cortex. J Am Med Inform Assn 8: 443–459.
[31]
Laeng B, Chabris CF, Kosslyn SM (2003) Asymmetries in encoding spatial relations. In K Hugdahl & R J Davidson (Eds.), The Asymmetrical Brain, pp 303–339.
[32]
Desimone R (1998) Visual attention mediated by biased competition in extrastriate visual cortex. Philos T Roy Soc B 353: 1245–1255.
[33]
Desimone R, Duncan J (1995) Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu Rev Neurosci 18: 193–222.
[34]
Jacobs RA, Kosslyn SM (1994) Encoding shape and spatial relations: The role of receptive field size in coordinating complementary representations. Cognitive Sci 18: 361–386.
[35]
Smith AT, Singh KD, Williams AL, Greenlee MW (2001) Estimating Receptive Field Size from fMRI Data in Human Striate and Extrastriate Visual Cortex. Cereb Cortex 11: 1182–1190.
[36]
Martin R, Housseman C, Schiltz C, Burnod Y, Alexandre F (2008) Is there continuity between categorical and coordinate spatial relations coding? Evidence from a grid/no-grid working memory paradigm. Neuropsychologia 46: 576–594.
[37]
Kosslyn SM, Chabris CF, Marsolek CJ, Koenig O (1992) Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: Computational analyses and computer simulations. J Exp Psychol Human 181: 562–577.
[38]
Slotnick SD, Moo LR, Tesoro MA, Hart J (2001) Hemispheric asymmetry in categorical versus coordinate visuospatial processing revealed by temporary cortical activation. J Cognitive Neurosci 13: 1088–1096.
