Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28381492›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2017

Dynamic population codes of multiplexed stimulus features in primate area MT.

Erin Goddard, Samuel G Solomon, Thomas A Carlson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neural mechanism of priming in visual search.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2021
    Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Erin GoddardSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; erin.goddard@mcgill.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-6601-6855
Samuel G SolomonDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas A CarlsonSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The middle-temporal area (MT) of primate visual cortex is critical in the analysis of visual motion. Single-unit studies suggest that the response dynamics of neurons within area MT depend on stimulus features, but how these dynamics emerge at the population level, and how feature representations interact, is not clear. Here, we used multivariate classification analysis to study how stimulus features are represented in the spiking activity of populations of neurons in area MT of marmoset monkey. Using representational similarity analysis we distinguished the emerging representations of moving grating and dot field stimuli. We show that representations of stimulus orientation, spatial frequency, and speed are evident near the onset of the population response, while the representation of stimulus direction is slower to emerge and sustained throughout the stimulus-evoked response. We further found a spatiotemporal asymmetry in the emergence of direction representations. Representations for high spatial frequencies and low temporal frequencies are initially orientation dependent, while those for high temporal frequencies and low spatial frequencies are more sensitive to motion direction. Our analyses reveal a complex interplay of feature representations in area MT population response that may explain the stimulus-dependent dynamics of motion vision.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, VisualAnimalsCallithrixElectroencephalographyMaleNeuronsTemporal LobeVisual Cortexdirectionmarmosetmultivariate pattern classification analysisrepresentational similarity analysisvisual motion

Identifiers

PMID28381492
PMCPMC5494367

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.