Cited by 64Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationNeural dynamics and brain function

Transformation of perception from sensory to motor cortex

Open access
Fassihi, Arash, Akrami, Athena, Pulecchi, Francesca, Schönfelder, Vinzenz, Diamond, Mathew E.·2017·Current Biology

Abstract

To better understand how a stream of sensory data is transformed into a percept, we examined neuronal activity in vibrissal sensory cortex, vS1, together with vibrissal motor cortex, vM1 (a frontal cortex target of vS1), while rats compared the intensity of two vibrations separated by an interstimulus delay. Vibrations were "noisy," constructed by stringing together over time a sequence of velocity values sampled from a normal distribution; each vibration's mean speed was proportional to the width of the normal distribution. Durations of both stimulus 1 and stimulus 2 could vary from 100 to 600 ms. Psychometric curves reveal that rats overestimated the longer-duration stimulus-thus, perceived intensity of a vibration grew over the course of hundreds of milliseconds even while the sensory input remained, on average, stationary. Human subjects demonstrated the identical perceptual phenomenon, indicating that the underlying mechanisms of temporal integration generalize across species. The time dependence of the percept allowed us to ask to what extent neurons encoded the ongoing stimulus stream versus the animal's percept. We demonstrate that vS1 firing correlated with the local features of the vibration, whereas vM1 firing correlated with the percept: the final vM1 population state varied, as did the rat's behavior, according to both stimulus speed and stimulus duration. Moreover, vM1 populations appeared to participate in the trace of the percept of stimulus 1 as the rat awaited stimulus 2. In conclusion, the transformation of sensory data into the percept appears to involve the integration and storage of vS1 signals by vM1.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.011

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Serial transformation of sensory inputs along bottom-up hierarchical pathways has been observed in rodents engaged in whisker-discrimination tasks, with increasingly stronger association with perceptual choice in S2 and premotor areas rather than wS1.

    “Serial transformation of sensory inputs along bottom–up hierarchical pathways has been observed in rodents engaged in whisker-discrimination tasks (8, 9) with an increasingly stronger association with perceptual choice in S2 (10, 11) and premotor areas (12–14) rather than whisker-related wS1 (9).”

    From Neural correlates of perceptual decision-making in the primary somatosensory cortex (2026) · cites this paper as [9]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fassihi, A., Akrami, A., Pulecchi, F., Schönfelder, V., & Diamond, M. E.
Affiliations
  • Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (IT)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Diamond, Mathew E.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1585-1596.e6
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2617276037
Cited by
64
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SDL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Human Frontier Science Program (RG0015/2013)
  • European Research Council (294498)
  • MIUR (GA 280778)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
sensory-motor transformation, vibration perception, temporal integration, population coding, rats, cross-species generalization, psychometric curves
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Biological, Motor Cortex, Neurons, Perception, Physical Stimulation, Psychophysics, Somatosensory Cortex, Time Factors, Vibration, Vibrissae, Rats, Wistar, Rats, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers

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