Keep Your Eyes on Development: The Behavioral and Neurophysiological Development of Visual Mechanisms Underlying Form Processing

Visual form perception is essential for correct interpretation of, and interaction with, our environment. Form perception depends on visual acuity and processing of specific form characteristics, such as luminance contrast, spatial frequency, color, orientation, depth, and even motion information. As other cognitive processes, form perception matures with age. This paper aims at providing a concise overview of our current understanding of the typical development, from birth to adulthood, of form-characteristic processing, as measured both behaviorally and neurophysiologically. Two main conclusions can be drawn. First, the current literature conveys that for most reviewed characteristics a developmental pattern is apparent. These trajectories are discussed in relation to the organization of the visual system. The second conclusion is that significant gaps in the literature exist for several age-ranges. To complete our understanding of the typical and, by consequence, atypical development of visual mechanisms underlying form processing, future research should uncover these missing segments

General anesthesia as a possible GABAergic modulator affects visual processing in children

<p>Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) inhibitory interneurons play an important role in visual processing, as is revealed by studies administering drugs in human and monkey adults. Investigating this process in children requires different methodologies, due to ethical considerations. The current study aimed to investigate whether a new method, being general anesthesia using Sevoflurane, can be used to trace the effects of GABAergic modulation on visual brain functioning in children. To this aim, visual processing was investigated in children aged 4-12 years who were scheduled for minor urologic procedures under general anesthesia in day-care treatment. In a visual segmentation task, the difference in Event-Related Potential (ERP) response to homogeneous and textured stimuli was investigated. In addition, psychophysical performance on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were measured. Results were compared between before and shortly after anesthesia. In two additional studies, effects at 1 day after anesthesia and possible effects of task-repetition were investigated. ERP results showed longer latency and lower amplitude of the Texture Negativity (TN) component shortly after compared to before anesthesia. No effects of anesthesia on psychophysical measurements were found. No effects at 1 day after anesthesia or of repetition were revealed either. These results show that GABAergic modulation through general anesthesia affects ERP reflections of visual segmentation in a similar way in children as benzodiazepine does in adults, but that effects are not permanent. This demonstrates that ERP measurement after anesthesia is a successful method to study effects of GABAergic modulation in children.</p>

Segmentation precedes face categorization under suboptimal conditions

Both categorization and segmentation processes play a crucial role in face perception. However, the functional relation between these subprocesses is currently unclear. The present study investigates the temporal relation between segmentation-related and category-selective responses in the brain, using electroencephalography (EEG). Surface segmentation and category content were both manipulated using texture-defined objects, including faces. This allowed us to study brain activity related to segmentation and to categorization. In the main experiment, participants viewed texture-defined objects for a duration of 800 ms. EEG results revealed that segmentation-related responses precede category-selective responses. Three additional experiments revealed that the presence and timing of categorization depends on stimulus properties and presentation duration. Photographic objects were presented for a long and short (92 ms) duration and evoked fast category-selective responses in both cases. On the other hand, presentation of texture-defined objects for a short duration only evoked segmentation-related but no category-selective responses. Category-selective responses were much slower when evoked by texture-defined than by photographic objects. We suggest that in case of categorization of objects under suboptimal conditions, such as when low-level stimulus properties are not sufficient for fast object categorization, segmentation facilitates the slower categorization process