Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30006530›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Integrated deep visual and semantic attractor neural networks predict fMRI pattern-information along the ventral object processing pathway.

Barry J Devereux, Alex Clarke, Lorraine K Tyler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Scope and Limits of Fine-Grained Image and Category Information in the Ventral Visual Pathway.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Visual Recognition Memory of Scenes Is Driven by Categorical, Not Sensory, Visual Representations.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Representational formats of human memory traces.Brain structure & function · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Hippocampal Functions Modulate Transfer-Appropriate Cortical Representations Supporting Subsequent Memory.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Effects of Aging on Successful Object Encoding: Enhanced Semantic Representations Compensate for Impaired Visual Representations.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  15. Deep Neural Networks and Visuo-Semantic Models Explain Complementary Components of Human Ventral-Stream Representational Dynamics.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  16. A neural network account of memory replay and knowledge consolidation.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Perceptual and Semantic Representations at Encoding Contribute to True and False Recognition of Objects.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2021
    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

3 authors.

Barry J DevereuxDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2128-8632
Alex ClarkeDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7768-5229
Lorraine K TylerDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, United Kingdom. lktyler@csl.psychol.cam.ac.uk.

Funding

EC | European Research Council (ERC) 249640European Research Council 249640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recognising an object involves rapid visual processing and activation of semantic knowledge about the object, but how visual processing activates and interacts with semantic representations remains unclear. Cognitive neuroscience research has shown that while visual processing involves posterior regions along the ventral stream, object meaning involves more anterior regions, especially perirhinal cortex. Here we investigate visuo-semantic processing by combining a deep neural network model of vision with an attractor network model of semantics, such that visual information maps onto object meanings represented as activation patterns across features. In the combined model, concept activation is driven by visual input and co-occurrence of semantic features, consistent with neurocognitive accounts. We tested the model's ability to explain fMRI data where participants named objects. Visual layers explained activation patterns in early visual cortex, whereas pattern-information in perirhinal cortex was best explained by later stages of the attractor network, when detailed semantic representations are activated. Posterior ventral temporal cortex was best explained by intermediate stages corresponding to initial semantic processing, when visual information has the greatest influence on the emerging semantic representation. These results provide proof of principle of how a mechanistic model of combined visuo-semantic processing can account for pattern-information in the ventral stream.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalBrain MappingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePattern Recognition, VisualPerirhinal CortexSemanticsVisual CortexVisual Pathways

Identifiers

PMID30006530
PMCPMC6045572

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.