Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28082892›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2016

Neurons in Primate Visual Cortex Alternate between Responses to Multiple Stimuli in Their Receptive Field.

Kang Li, Vladislav Kozyrev, Søren Kyllingsbæk, Stefan Treue, Susanne Ditlevsen, Claus Bundesen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Testing models at the neural level reveals how the brain computes subjective value.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Kang LiDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of CopenhagenCopenhagen, Denmark; Department of Psychology, University of CopenhagenCopenhagen, Denmark.
Vladislav KozyrevCognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, German Primate CenterGoettingen, Germany; Bernstein Center for Computational NeuroscienceGoettingen, Germany; Chair Theory of Cognitive Systems, Institute for Neuroinformatics, Ruhr University BochumBochum, Germany; Visual Cognition Lab, Department of Medicine/Physiology, University of FribourgFribourg, Switzerland.
Søren KyllingsbækDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark.
Stefan TreueCognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, German Primate CenterGoettingen, Germany; Bernstein Center for Computational NeuroscienceGoettingen, Germany; Faculty for Biology and Psychology, Goettingen UniversityGeottingen, Germany.
Susanne DitlevsenDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark.
Claus BundesenDepartment of Psychology, University of Copenhagen Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A fundamental question concerning representation of the visual world in our brain is how a cortical cell responds when presented with more than a single stimulus. We find supportive evidence that most cells presented with a pair of stimuli respond predominantly to one stimulus at a time, rather than a weighted average response. Traditionally, the firing rate is assumed to be a weighted average of the firing rates to the individual stimuli (response-averaging model) (Bundesen et al., 2005). Here, we also evaluate a probability-mixing model (Bundesen et al., 2005), where neurons temporally multiplex the responses to the individual stimuli. This provides a mechanism by which the representational identity of multiple stimuli in complex visual scenes can be maintained despite the large receptive fields in higher extrastriate visual cortex in primates. We compare the two models through analysis of data from single cells in the middle temporal visual area (MT) of rhesus monkeys when presented with two separate stimuli inside their receptive field with attention directed to one of the two stimuli or outside the receptive field. The spike trains were modeled by stochastic point processes, including memory effects of past spikes and attentional effects, and statistical model selection between the two models was performed by information theoretic measures as well as the predictive accuracy of the models. As an auxiliary measure, we also tested for uni- or multimodality in interspike interval distributions, and performed a correlation analysis of simultaneously recorded pairs of neurons, to evaluate population behavior.

Indexed as

model selectionmultiple stimulipoint processprimate visual cortexprobability-mixingresponse-averaging

Identifiers

PMID28082892
PMCPMC5187355

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.