This study examined the question of which features of a complex grouping discrimination make it vulnerable to permanent elimination by V4 lesions. We first verified that the line element grouping discrimination, which we previously reported to be devastated by V4 lesions, was similarly affected in the monkeys of this study. The permanence of the deficit was established by mapping its visual field distribution and then testing this discrimination for an extended period at a locus on the border of the deficit. Also, a staircase procedure was used to provide the monkey with within session instruction in the grouping discrimination, but this did not improve V4 lesion performance. Grouping was then compared with several discriminations that shared some features with it, but which were found not to be permanently eliminated by V4 lesions. This comparison suggested that grouping (rather than segmentation or response to a single element) was one feature that made the discrimination vulnerable, a second was the similarity in shape of the texture elements to be grouped. Finally, we tested visual crowding, a property of peripheral vision that is thought to reflect neuronal interactions early in visual cortex, possibly in area V1, and found no effect of V4 lesions. A control experiment with human observers tested whether the elimination of grouping by V4 lesions might be due to an alteration of attention, but found no evidence to support this hypothesis. These results show that severe disruption of texture discriminations by V4 lesions depends on both the nature of the discrimination and the type of texture elements involved, but does not necessarily involve the disruption of attention.

Cells in area V1 of the anesthetized macaque monkey were stimulated with large texture patterns composed of homogeneous regions of line elements (texels) with different orientations. To human observers, such patterns appear to segregate, with the percept of sharp boundaries between texture regions. Our objective was to investigate whether the boundaries are reflected in the responses of single cells in V1. We measured responses to individual texels at different distances from the texture border. For each cell, patterns of optimally or orthogonally orientated texels were adjusted so that only one texel fell into the receptive field and all other texels fell in the visually unresponsive regions outside. In 37 out of 156 neurons tested (24%), texels immediately adjacent to a texture border evoked reliably larger responses than identical texels farther away from the border. In 17 neurons (11%), responses to texels near the border were relatively reduced. Border enhancement effects were generally stronger than border attenuation effects. When tested with four different border configurations (two global orientations and two edge polarities), many cells showed reliable effects for only one or two configurations, consistent with cells encoding information about the orientation of the texture border or its location with respect to the segmented region. Across the sample, enhancement effects were similar for all texture borders. Modulation by the texture surround was predominantly suppressive; even the responses near texture borders were smaller than those to a single line. We compared these results with the results of a popout test in which the line in the receptive field was surrounded by homogeneous texture fields either orthogonal or parallel to the center line. The patterns of response modulation and the temporal onset of differential responses were similar in the two tests, suggesting that the two perceptual phenomena are mediated by similar neural mechanisms.