Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38319677›Full record

ReviewJournal of cognitive neuroscience2024

Understanding Cortical Streams from a Computational Perspective.

Zhixian Han, Anne B Sereno

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Zhixian HanPurdue University.ORCID 0000-0002-5953-8521
Anne B SerenoPurdue University.ORCID 0000-0003-2870-4985

Funding

NIH CTSI Indiana State Department of Health 20000703Purdue University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The two visual cortical streams hypothesis, which suggests object properties (what) are processed separately from spatial properties (where), has a longstanding history, and much evidence has accumulated to support its conjectures. Nevertheless, in the last few decades, conflicting evidence has mounted that demands some explanation and modification. For example, existence of (1) shape activities (fMRI) or shape selectivities (physiology) in dorsal stream, similar to ventral stream; likewise, spatial activations (fMRI) or spatial selectivities (physiology) in ventral stream, similar to dorsal stream; (2) multiple segregated subpathways within a stream. In addition, the idea of segregation of various aspects of multiple objects in a scene raises questions about how these properties of multiple objects are then properly re-associated or bound back together to accurately perceive, remember, or make decisions. We will briefly review the history of the two-stream hypothesis, discuss competing accounts that challenge current thinking, and propose ideas on why the brain has segregated pathways. We will present ideas based on our own data using artificial neural networks (1) to reveal encoding differences for what and where that arise in a two-pathway neural network, (2) to show how these encoding differences can clarify previous conflicting findings, and (3) to elucidate the computational advantages of segregated pathways. Furthermore, we will discuss whether neural networks need to have multiple subpathways for different visual attributes. We will also discuss the binding problem (how to correctly associate the different attributes of each object together when there are multiple objects each with multiple attributes in a scene) and possible solutions to the binding problem. Finally, we will briefly discuss problems and limitations with existing models and potential fruitful future directions.

Indexed as

Visual PathwaysAnimalsHumansModels, NeurologicalNeural Networks, ComputerVisual Cortex

Identifiers

PMID38319677
PMCPMC11602005

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.