ArticleNeuroImage2019
Sensory processing and categorization in cortical and deep neural networks.
Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Categorization is 'baked' into the brain.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Review
- Detection of latent brain states from baseline neural activity in the amygdala.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- In vivo ephaptic coupling allows memory network formation.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Category learning in a recurrent neural network with reinforcement learning.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are rooted in visual neuroscience. However, ideas from more complicated paradigms like decision-making are less used. Although automated decision-making systems are ubiquitous (driverless cars, pilot support systems, medical diagnosis algorithms etc.), achieving human-level performance in decision making tasks is still a challenge. At the same time, these tasks that are hard for AI are easy for humans. Thus, understanding human brain dynamics during these decision-making tasks and modeling them using deep neural networks could improve AI performance. Here we modelled some of the complex neural interactions during a sensorimotor decision making task. We investigated how brain dynamics flexibly represented and distinguished between sensory processing and categorization in two sensory domains: motion direction and color. We used two different approaches for understanding neural representations. We compared brain responses to 1) the geometry of a sensory or category domain (domain selectivity) and 2) predictions from deep neural networks (computation selectivity). Both approaches gave us similar results. This confirmed the validity of our analyses. Using the first approach, we found that neural representations changed depending on context. We then trained deep recurrent neural networks to perform the same tasks as the animals. Using the second approach, we found that computations in different brain areas also changed flexibly depending on context. Color computations appeared to rely more on sensory processing, while motion computations more on abstract categories. Overall, our results shed light to the biological basis of categorization and differences in selectivity and computations in different brain areas. They also suggest a way for studying sensory and categorical representations in the brain: compare brain responses to both a behavioral model and a deep neural network and test if they give similar results.
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.