Cited by 361Visual perception and processing mechanismsMemory and Neural MechanismsFace Recognition and Perception

Viewpoint-Specific Scene Representations in Human Parahippocampal Cortex

Open access
Epstein, Russell, Graham, Kim S., Downing, Paul E.·2003·Neuron

Abstract

The "parahippocampal place area" (PPA) responds more strongly in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scenes than to faces, objects, or other visual stimuli. We used an event-related fMRI adaptation paradigm to test whether the PPA represents scenes in a viewpoint-specific or viewpoint-invariant manner. The PPA responded just as strongly to viewpoint changes that preserved intrinsic scene geometry as it did to complete scene changes, but less strongly to object changes within the scene. In contrast, lateral occipital cortex responded more strongly to object changes than to spatial changes. These results demonstrate that scene processing in the PPA is viewpoint specific and suggest that the PPA represents the relationship between the observer and the surfaces that define local space.

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/s0896-6273(03)00117-x

Cites

83 of 83 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?

  • The adaptation effect is consistent with adaptation to the background visual scene, as previously found with static scenes in similar areas.

    “is consistent with adaptation to the background visual scene (which is rendered at infinity; viewing direction is the same as running direction), as previously found with static scenes in similar areas14,16.”

    From Evidence for grid cells in a human memory network (2010) · cites this paper as [14]

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
Epstein, R., Graham, K. S., & Downing, P. E.
Affiliations
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
Corresponding author
Epstein, Russell
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-03
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
865-876
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125607983
Cited by
360
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 21
FWCI
10.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
parahippocampal place area, scene processing, viewpoint invariance, lateral occipital cortex, object recognition, spatial representation
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Visual Cortex, Parahippocampal Gyrus

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