ArticleScientific reports2016
A neural substrate for object permanence in monkey inferotemporal cortex.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hierarchical surprise signals in naturalistic violation of expectations.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- The nature of neural object representations during dynamic occlusion.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2022Article
- Searching for object pointers in the visual cortex.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We take it for granted that objects continue to exist after being occluded. This knowledge - known as object permanence - is present even in childhood, but its neural basis is not fully understood. Here, we show that monkey inferior temporal (IT) neurons carry potential signals of object permanence even in animals that received no explicit behavioral training. We compared two conditions with identical visual stimulation: the same object emerged from behind an occluder as expected following its occlusion, or unexpectedly after occlusion of a different object. Some neurons produced a larger (surprise) signal when the object emerged unexpectedly, whereas other neurons produced a larger (match) signal when the object reappeared as expected. Neurons carrying match signals also reinstated selective delay period activity just before the object emerged. Thus, signals related to object permanence are present in IT neurons and may arise through an interplay of memory and match computations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.