Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39747114›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The brain prioritizes the basic level of object category abstraction.

Michelle R Greene, Alyssa Magill Rohan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.

Michelle R GreeneBates College Program in Neuroscience, Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA. mgreene@barnard.edu.
Alyssa Magill RohanBates College Program in Neuroscience, Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The same object can be described at multiple levels of abstraction ("parka", "coat", "clothing"), yet human observers consistently name objects at a mid-level of specificity known as the basic level. Little is known about the temporal dynamics involved in retrieving neural representations that prioritize the basic level, nor how these dynamics change with evolving task demands. In this study, observers viewed 1080 objects arranged in a three-tier category taxonomy while 64-channel EEG was recorded. Observers performed a categorical one-back task in different recording sessions on the basic or subordinate levels. We used time-resolved multiple regression to assess the utility of superordinate-, basic-, and subordinate-level categories across the scalp. We found robust use of basic-level category information starting at about 50 ms after stimulus onset and moving from posterior electrodes (149 ms) through lateral (261 ms) to anterior sites (332 ms). Task differences were not evident in the first 200 ms of processing but were observed between 200-300 ms after stimulus presentation. Together, this work demonstrates that the object category representations prioritize the basic level and do so relatively early, congruent with results that show that basic-level categorization is an automatic and obligatory process.

Indexed as

BrainElectroencephalographyAdultFemaleHumansMalePattern Recognition, VisualPhotic StimulationReaction TimeYoung AdultEEGObject categorizationTask demandsTemporal dynamics

Identifiers

PMID39747114
PMCPMC11695711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.