Cited by 1,913Visual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and PerceptionVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain

Ungerleider, Leslie G., Haxby, James V.·1994·Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Abstract

Multiple visual areas in the cortex of nonhuman primates are organized into two hierarchically organized and functionally specialized processing pathways, a 'ventral stream' for object vision and a 'dorsal stream' for spatial vision. Recent findings from positron emission tomography activation studies have localized these pathways within the human brain, yielding insights into cortical hierarchies, specialization of function, and attentional mechanisms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0959-4388(94)90066-3

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is an interesting structure to the anti-edges that speaks to the well known segregation of dorsal and ventral pathways in the visual system: the missing connections are between the superior temporal sulcus and the early visual system, and between the ventral superior temporal sulcus/angular gyrus and dorsal posterior parietal cortex.

    “There is an interesting structure to the anti-edges that speaks to the well known segregation of dorsal and ventral pathways in the visual system (Ungerleider & Haxby 1994): The missing connections are between (i) the superior temporal sulcus and the early visual system, and (ii) the (ventral) superior temporal sulcus/angular gyrus and (dorsal) posterior parietal cortex.”

    From Network discovery with DCM (2011) · cites this paper as Ungerleider & Haxby 1994

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V.
Affiliations
  • National Institute of Mental Health (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1994
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
157-165
ISSN
0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968001820
Cited by
1,913
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 70 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 96 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 82 · 2012: 76
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
ventral stream, dorsal stream, object vision, spatial vision, visual cortex, cortical hierarchy, functional specialization, attention, human brain
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Brain, Brain Diseases, Cerebral Cortex, Cerebrovascular Circulation, Face, Humans, Primates, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review