Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31445126›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Sensory processing and categorization in cortical and deep neural networks.

Dimitris A Pinotsis, Markus Siegel, Earl K Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Categorization is 'baked' into the brain.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. In vivo ephaptic coupling allows memory network formation.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023
    Article
  4. 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.

Dimitris A PinotsisCentre for Mathematical Neuroscience and Psychology and Department of Psychology, City -University of London, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom; The Picower Institute for Learning & Memory and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA. Electronic address: pinotsis@mit.edu.
Markus SiegelCenter for Integrative Neuroscience and MEG Center, University of Tubingen, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Earl K MillerThe Picower Institute for Learning & Memory and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA.

Funding

Cortical Circuits for Attention and DecisionsR37MH087027 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI MILLER, EARL K · 2010 to 2019
$4.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH087027
6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCerebral CortexColor PerceptionDecision MakingFemaleMacaca mulattaMaleMotion PerceptionNerve NetPsychomotor PerformanceCategoriesCortical hierarchiesDecision makingDeep neural networksLSTMRecurrent networks

Identifiers

PMID31445126
PMCPMC6819254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.