ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2019
An integrative computational architecture for object-driven cortex.
Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Decoding predicted future states from the brain's "physics engine".Science advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Modeling short visual events through the BOLD moments video fMRI dataset and metadata.Nature communications · 2024Article
- The Role of Agentive and Physical Forces in the Neural Representation of Motion Events.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Gradual change of cortical representations with growing visual expertise for synthetic shapes.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Neurons in inferior temporal cortex are sensitive to motion trajectory during degraded object recognition.Cerebral cortex communications · 2022Article
- Capturing the objects of vision with neural networks.Nature human behaviour · 2021Review
- Mental geometry of perceiving 3D size in pictures.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational architecture for object-driven cortex Objects in motion activate multiple cortical regions in every lobe of the human brain. Do these regions represent a collection of independent systems, or is there an overarching functional architecture spanning all of object-driven cortex? Inspired by recent work in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and cognitive science, we consider the hypothesis that these regions can be understood as a coherent network implementing an integrative computational system that unifies the functions needed to perceive, predict, reason about, and plan with physical objects-as in the paradigmatic case of using or making tools. Our proposal draws on a modeling framework that combines multiple AI methods, including causal generative models, hybrid symbolic-continuous planning algorithms, and neural recognition networks, with object-centric, physics-based representations. We review evidence relating specific components of our proposal to the specific regions that comprise object-driven cortex, and lay out future research directions with the goal of building a complete functional and mechanistic account of this system.
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.