Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34193411›Full record

ArticleScience advances2021

The essential role of recurrent processing for figure-ground perception in mice.

Lisa Kirchberger, Sreedeep Mukherjee, Ulf H Schnabel, Enny H van Beest, Areg Barsegyan, Christiaan N Levelt, J Alexander Heimel, Jeannette A M Lorteije, Chris van der Togt, Matthew W Self and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science advances, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Lisa KirchbergerDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6837-5210
Sreedeep MukherjeeDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Ulf H SchnabelDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Enny H van BeestDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2454-0445
Areg BarsegyanDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Christiaan N LeveltMolecular Visual Plasticity Group, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1813-6243
J Alexander HeimelCortical Structure and Function Group, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5291-4184
Jeannette A M LorteijeCognitive and Systems Neuroscience Group, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam, 1098XH Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Chris van der TogtDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7373-4625
Matthew W SelfDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5731-579X
Pieter R RoelfsemaDepartment of Vision and Cognition, Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, Meibergdreef 47, 1105 BA, Amsterdam, Netherlands. p.roelfsema@nin.knaw.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1625-0034
Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience · NL

Funding

European Research Council 339490
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The segregation of figures from the background is an important step in visual perception. In primary visual cortex, figures evoke stronger activity than backgrounds during a delayed phase of the neuronal responses, but it is unknown how this figure-ground modulation (FGM) arises and whether it is necessary for perception. Here, we show, using optogenetic silencing in mice, that the delayed V1 response phase is necessary for figure-ground segregation. Neurons in higher visual areas also exhibit FGM and optogenetic silencing of higher areas reduced FGM in V1. In V1, figures elicited higher activity of vasoactive intestinal peptide-expressing (VIP) interneurons than the background, whereas figures suppressed somatostatin-positive interneurons, resulting in an increased activation of pyramidal cells. Optogenetic silencing of VIP neurons reduced FGM in V1, indicating that disinhibitory circuits contribute to FGM. Our results provide insight into how lower and higher areas of the visual cortex interact to shape visual perception.

Identifiers

PMID34193411
PMCPMC8245045
OpenAlexW3174058946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.