Cited by 556Memory and Neural MechanismsNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismMemory Processes and Influences

Neural representations of events arise from temporal community structure

Open access
Schapiro, Anna C, Rogers, Timothy T, Cordova, Natalia I, Turk-Browne, Nicholas B, Botvinick, Matthew M·2013·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Our experience of the world seems to divide naturally into discrete, temporally extended events, yet the mechanisms underlying the learning and identification of events are poorly understood. Research on event perception has focused on transient elevations in predictive uncertainty or surprise as the primary signal driving event segmentation. We present human behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) evidence in favor of a different account, in which event representations coalesce around clusters or 'communities' of mutually predicting stimuli. Through parsing behavior, fMRI adaptation and multivoxel pattern analysis, we demonstrate the emergence of event representations in a domain containing such community structure, but in which transition probabilities (the basis of uncertainty and surprise) are uniform. We present a computational account of how the relevant representations might arise, proposing a direct connection between event learning and the learning of semantic categories.

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 · 10.1038/nn.3331

Cites

55 of 55 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

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
Schapiro, A. C., Rogers, T. T., Cordova, N. I., Turk-Browne, N. B., & Botvinick, M. M.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Schapiro, Anna C
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2013-02-17
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
486-492
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2016723506
Cited by
556
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 4
FWCI
9.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY021755)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
event perception, event segmentation, forecast uncertainty, surprise, neural adaptation, multi-voxel pattern analysis, transition probabilities
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Female, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Time Factors, Neural Networks, Computer, Computational Biology, Young Adult

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