Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 229

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging

Open access
Gauthier, Isabel, Anderson, Adam W, Tarr, Michael J, Skudlarski, Pawel, Gore, John C·1997·Current Biology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent functional neuroimaging results implicate part of the ventral temporal lobe of the brain in face recognition, and have, together with neurophysiological findings, been used as evidence for a face-specific neural module in the brain. Experimental designs, however, have often failed to distinguish between the class of the object used as the stimulus (face or non-face) and the level of categorization at which the stimulus is recognized (the 'basic' level, such as 'bird', at which familiar objects are first recognized, or more subordinate levels - 'sparrow', for example - which require additional perceptual processing). We have used echo-planar functional magnetic resonance imaging to compare brain activation for the matching of non-face objects with subordinate-level and basic-level descriptors. RESULTS: The additional visual processing required to verify the subordinate level of a picture over its basic level was associated with activation of the fusiform and inferior temporal gyri (FIT) as well as the temporal poles. These areas correspond closely to those previously implicated in the processing of facial images. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that areas of the ventral visual pathway that have been associated with face recognition are sensitive to manipulations of the categorization level of non-face objects. This idea offers an alternative to the dominant view that FIT may be organized according to conceptual categories, and our results establish the importance of manipulating task requirements when evaluating a 'neural module' hypothesis.

Overview

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/s0960-9822(06)00291-0

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 229

Metadata

Authors
Gauthier, I., Anderson, A. W., Tarr, M. J., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-09
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
645-651
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040483968
Cited by
229
References
4
FWCI
7.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0960-9822(06)00291-0
The paper
Gauthier, I., Anderson, A. W., Tarr, M. J., Skudlarski, P., & Gore, J. C. (1997). Levels of categorization in visual recognition studied using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Current Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(06)00291-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.