Cited by 227Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Learned spatiotemporal sequence recognition and prediction in primary visual cortex

Open access
Gavornik, Jeffrey P, Bear, Mark F·2014·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Learning to recognize and predict temporal sequences is fundamental to sensory perception and is impaired in several neuropsychiatric disorders, but little is known about where and how this occurs in the brain. We discovered that repeated presentations of a visual sequence over a course of days resulted in evoked response potentiation in mouse V1 that was highly specific for stimulus order and timing. Notably, after V1 was trained to recognize a sequence, cortical activity regenerated the full sequence even when individual stimulus elements were omitted. Our results advance the understanding of how the brain makes 'intelligent guesses' on the basis of limited information to form visual percepts and suggest that it is possible to study the mechanistic basis of this high-level cognitive ability by studying low-level sensory systems.

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.3683

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Several rodent studies provide evidence that predictive activity emerges over the course of exposure to statistical regularities in visual stimuli and that this correlates with the magnitude of prediction error responses.

    “Several rodent studies have provided evidence that predictive activity emerges over the course of exposure to statistical regularities in visual stimuli 47 , 52 , 124 (see also Ref. 88 for single unit recording in monkeys) and that this correlates with the magnitude of prediction error responses.”

    From Evaluating the neurophysiological evidence for predictive processing as a model of perception (2020) · cites this paper as [52]

    The Results report that repeated exposure to a visual sequence produced learned responses in mice, including an anticipatory response when a predicted element was omitted. They do not report a correlation between predictive activity and the magnitude of prediction-error responses, so that part of the attributed claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A number of direct recording studies have produced the opposite pattern to Bell et al., with unexpected or random stimuli eliciting reduced responses relative to expected or neutral stimuli in macaque IT and rodent V1.

    “The picture is further complicated by the fact that a number of direct recording studies have produced the opposite pattern of results to Bell et al., with unexpected or random stimuli eliciting reduced responses relative to expected or neutral stimuli in macaque IT 95 , 96 and rodent V1 52 (see Ref. 97 for corresponding results in a human study).”
  • Human and animal studies indicate that the brain is finely tuned to efficiently extract regularities from streams of sensory input through passive sensory experience, self-generated actions, and exploration of the environment, and that these expectations influence sensory processing.

    “Human and animal studies indicate that the brain is finely tuned to efficiently extract regularities from streams of sensory input 120 , 121 through passive sensory experience, 52 , 122 self‐generated actions, 123 , 124 and exploration of the environment, 47 , 124 and that these expectations influence sensory processing.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [35]35. Cajal, SR. Story, WE. Clark University, 1889-1899: Decennial Celebration. Clark University Press; Worcestor, Massachusetts: 1899. Comparative study of the sensory areas of the human cortex; p. 311-382.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gavornik, J. P., & Bear, M. F.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Bear, Mark F
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2014-03-23
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
732-737
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2003958121
Cited by
227
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 6
FWCI
9.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • PMC
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K99MH099654)
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY023037)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
primary visual cortex, sequence learning, stimulus order, stimulus timing, visual perception, mouse visual system, perceptual inference
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Attention, Electrodes, Implanted, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Photic Stimulation, Piperazines, Scopolamine, Serial Learning, Time Factors, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception, Cholinergic Antagonists, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists, Recognition, Psychology, Mice

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