CNRS, CEA, IMN, GIN, UMR 5293, Université Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
PACEA UMR 5199, CNRS, Université Bordeaux, Pessac, France.
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 3;17(8):e0271732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271732. eCollection 2022.
It has been suggested that engraved abstract patterns dating from the Middle and Lower Palaeolithic served as means of representation and communication. Identifying the brain regions involved in visual processing of these engravings can provide insights into their function. In this study, brain activity was measured during perception of the earliest known Palaeolithic engraved patterns and compared to natural patterns mimicking human-made engravings. Participants were asked to categorise marks as being intentionally made by humans or due to natural processes (e.g. erosion, root etching). To simulate the putative familiarity of our ancestors with the marks, the responses of expert archaeologists and control participants were compared, allowing characterisation of the effect of previous knowledge on both behaviour and brain activity in perception of the marks. Besides a set of regions common to both groups and involved in visual analysis and decision-making, the experts exhibited greater activity in the inferior part of the lateral occipital cortex, ventral occipitotemporal cortex, and medial thalamic regions. These results are consistent with those reported in visual expertise studies, and confirm the importance of the integrative visual areas in the perception of the earliest abstract engravings. The attribution of a natural rather than human origin to the marks elicited greater activity in the salience network in both groups, reflecting the uncertainty and ambiguity in the perception of, and decision-making for, natural patterns. The activation of the salience network might also be related to the process at work in the attribution of an intention to the marks. The primary visual area was not specifically involved in the visual processing of engravings, which argued against its central role in the emergence of engraving production.
有人认为,从中石器时代到旧石器时代中期的雕刻抽象图案被用作表现和交流的手段。识别参与这些雕刻视觉处理的大脑区域可以深入了解其功能。在这项研究中,在感知最早的已知旧石器时代雕刻图案期间测量了大脑活动,并将其与模仿人类雕刻的自然图案进行了比较。要求参与者将标记分类为人类有意制作的还是由于自然过程(例如侵蚀、根蚀刻)造成的。为了模拟我们的祖先对标记的假定熟悉程度,比较了专家考古学家和对照组参与者的反应,从而可以描述先前的知识对感知标记时的行为和大脑活动的影响。除了两组共同参与视觉分析和决策的一组区域外,专家还在外侧枕叶皮质的下部、腹侧枕颞皮质和内侧丘脑区域表现出更大的活动。这些结果与视觉专业知识研究报告的结果一致,并证实了整合视觉区域在感知最早的抽象雕刻中的重要性。将标记归因于自然而不是人为起源会引起两组中突显网络的更大活动,反映出对自然模式的感知和决策的不确定性和模糊性。突显网络的激活也可能与将意图归因于标记的过程有关。初级视觉区域并未专门参与雕刻的视觉处理,这表明其在雕刻制作出现中的核心作用是有争议的。