Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25246586›Full record

Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014

Unique semantic space in the brain of each beholder predicts perceived similarity.

Ian Charest, Rogier A Kievit, Taylor W Schmitz, Diana Deca, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

85 citing papers in PubMed, 206 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Brief Encounters with Real Objects Modulate the Medial Parietal But Not Occipitotemporal Cortex.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  11. Individual differences shape conceptual representation in the brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Beholder's Share: Bridging art and neuroscience to study individual differences in subjective experience.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ian CharestMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom; and ian.charest@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk nikolaus.kriegeskorte@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.
Rogier A KievitMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom; and.
Taylor W SchmitzMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom; and.
Diana DecaInstitute of Neuroscience, Technische Universität München, 80802 Munich, Germany.
Nikolaus KriegeskorteMedical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, Cambridge CB2 7EF, United Kingdom; and ian.charest@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk nikolaus.kriegeskorte@mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk.
Medical Research Council · GBMRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit · GBTechnical University of Munich · DE

Funding

European Research Council 261352Medical Research Council MC-A060-5PR60Medical Research Council MC_U105597120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unique way in which each of us perceives the world must arise from our brain representations. If brain imaging could reveal an individual's unique mental representation, it could help us understand the biological substrate of our individual experiential worlds in mental health and disease. However, imaging studies of object vision have focused on commonalities between individuals rather than individual differences and on category averages rather than representations of particular objects. Here we investigate the individually unique component of brain representations of particular objects with functional MRI (fMRI). Subjects were presented with unfamiliar and personally meaningful object images while we measured their brain activity on two separate days. We characterized the representational geometry by the dissimilarity matrix of activity patterns elicited by particular object images. The representational geometry remained stable across scanning days and was unique in each individual in early visual cortex and human inferior temporal cortex (hIT). The hIT representation predicted perceived similarity as reflected in dissimilarity judgments. Importantly, hIT predicted the individually unique component of the judgments when the objects were personally meaningful. Our results suggest that hIT brain representational idiosyncrasies accessible to fMRI are expressed in an individual's perceptual judgments. The unique way each of us perceives the world thus might reflect the individually unique representation in high-level visual areas.

Indexed as

SemanticsAdolescentBrainBrain MappingFemaleHumansJudgmentMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReproducibility of ResultsVisual PathwaysYoung Adultmemoryneuroimagingobject representationsrepresentational similarity analysisvisual perception

Identifiers

PMID25246586
PMCPMC4209976
OpenAlexW1993901699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.