CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 516Visual perception and processing mechanismsMotor Control and AdaptationMultisensory perception and integration

Neural correlates of perceptual learning in a sensory-motor, but not a sensory, cortical area

Open access
Law, Chi-Tat, Gold, Joshua I·2008·Nature Neuroscience
DOI 10.1038/nn2070PMC PMC2424192
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study aimed to identify neural mechanisms that underlie perceptual learning in a visual-discrimination task. We trained two monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to determine the direction of visual motion while we recorded from their middle temporal area (MT), which in trained monkeys represents motion information that is used to solve the task, and lateral intraparietal area (LIP), which represents the transformation of motion information into a saccadic choice. During training, improved behavioral sensitivity to weak motion signals was accompanied by changes in motion-driven responses of neurons in LIP, but not in MT. The time course and magnitude of the changes in LIP correlated with the changes in behavioral sensitivity throughout training. Thus, for this task, perceptual learning does not appear to involve improvements in how sensory information is represented in the brain, but rather how the sensory representation is interpreted to form the decision that guides behavior.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In two monkeys trained on a visual motion direction-discrimination task, improved sensitivity to weak motion was accompanied by changes in motion-driven responses in LIP but not MT. The results suggest perceptual learning involved changes in how sensory evidence is interpreted to form a decision, rather than changes in the sensory representation itself.

Key findings

  • Discrimination thresholds improved from ~67% to ~15% coherence for monkey C and from ~68% to ~19% coherence for monkey Z, with time constants of 24.6±0.4 and 58.5±2.5 sessions, respectively.
  • MT responses did not change significantly with training: neurometric thresholds were ~4% better during versus before training but not significant (monkey C: 25.9% before vs 21.0% during, p=0.1964; monkey Z: 21.1% before vs 18.4% during, p=0.4762).
  • LIP responses developed a coherence × time interaction that grew with training and correlated with behavioural threshold (partial correlation r=−0.42, p<10−5 for monkey C; r=−0.35, p=0.0049 for monkey Z).
  • MT choice probability increased from 0.493±0.011 in the first 30% of sessions to 0.549±0.018 in the last 30%, and LIP–behaviour model correlations were r=0.59 (p<10−12) for monkey C and r=0.60 (p<10−9) for monkey Z, whereas MT–behaviour correlations were not significant.

Methods

  • Two naïve rhesus monkeys performed a one-interval, two-alternative direction-discrimination task using random-dot motion, reporting direction with an eye movement while MT and LIP neurons were recorded during training.
  • Behavioural data were fit with a time-dependent cumulative Weibull function to estimate discrimination threshold; MT and LIP responses were normalized and fit with a linear model containing coherence, viewing time, and coherence × time interaction terms.
  • Nested models compared behavioural, MT, and LIP data via a common motion-sensitive scaling term; MT neurometric thresholds and choice probabilities were also computed.

Limitations

  • The paper states that changes in other extrastriate visual areas carrying motion signals, such as MST, cannot be ruled out.
  • The paper states that the exact role of LIP in task performance throughout training is unknown, and multiple brain areas including superior colliculus and FEF show similar sensory-motor responses.
  • The text makes evident that only two monkeys were studied, that stimulus configuration varied slightly across sessions because it depended on recorded neuron properties, and that correlated firing among MT pairs was based on a small number of simultaneously recorded pairs (n=8 before, n=9 during training).

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nn2070

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 57 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Behavioural sensitivity to weak motion signals improved continuously during training, long after monkeys had acquired the stimulus/response association.

    “Behavioural sensitivity to weak motion signals improved continuously during training, long after monkeys had acquired the stimulus/response association.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    During training, improved behavioural sensitivity to weak motion signals was accompanied by changes in motion-driven responses of neurons in LIP but not MT.

    “During training, improved behavioural sensitivity to weak motion signals was accompanied by changes in motion-driven responses of neurons in LIP but not MT.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “This improvement in behavioural sensitivity corresponded to changes in the responses of neurons in LIP but not MT during motion viewing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    The time course and magnitude of the changes in LIP were correlated with the changes in behavioural sensitivity throughout training.

    “The time course and magnitude of the changes in LIP were correlated with the changes in behavioural sensitivity throughout training.”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “Moreover, LIP activity was correlated with behavioural threshold across sessions after taking into account the high-coherence errors (Fig. 5, left; partial correlation rth,(k3|λ) = −0.42, H0: r=0 using Fisher’s Z transformation, p<10−5 for monkey C; rth,(k3|λ) =−0.35, p=0.0049 for monkey Z)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    Behavioural performance improved steadily for both monkeys with training.

    “Behavioural performance improved steadily for both monkeys with training (Fig. 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Results

    This lack of long-term changes across sessions occurred despite short-term changes within sessions.

    “Interestingly, this lack of long-term changes across sessions occurred despite short-term changes within sessions, as has been reported previously (geometric mean±SEM ratio of psychometric thresholds in the second 200 versus the first 200 trials = 0.92±0.22 in monkey C and 0.84±0.29 in monkey Z; ratio of neurometric thresholds in MT in the second 200 versus the first 200 trials = 0.87±0.23 in monk”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [30] Zohary, E., Celebrini, S., Britten, K.H. & Newsome, W.T. Neuronal plasticity that underlies improvement in perceptual performance. Science 263, 1289–1292 (1994). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 18
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 9

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Both monkeys learned how to perform the task in early sessions and soon could express the visuomotor association for high-coherence stimuli with few or no errors.

    “Thus, both monkeys learned how to perform the task in early sessions and soon could express the visuomotor association for high-coherence stimuli with few or no errors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Throughout training, on trials in which the monkey selected the saccade target in the neuron's response field LIP activity tended to increase gradually during motion viewing, stay elevated during the subsequent delay period and then increase just prior to saccade onset.

    “Throughout training, on trials in which the monkey selected the saccade target in the neuron’s response field LIP activity tended to increase gradually during motion viewing, stay elevated during the subsequent delay period and then increase just prior to saccade onset.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Some of these parameters changed with training, but none were consistently correlated with the changes in LIP responsiveness over the course of training for both monkeys.

    “Some of these parameters changed with training, but none were consistently correlated with the changes in LIP responsiveness over the course of training for both monkeys (Fig. 5 and Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Neurometric thresholds in MT were, on average, ~4% better during versus before training, but the differences were not significant.

    “Neurometric thresholds were, on average, ~4% better during versus before training, but the differences were not significant (monkey C: geometric mean threshold coherence before training = 25.9%, during training = 21.0%, Mann-Whitney U test p=0.1964; monkey Z: before = 21.1%; during = 18.4%, p=0.4762).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The peri-saccadic activity in LIP tended to be smaller in the first ~15 sessions but then remained relatively stable throughout the rest of training.

    “The peri-saccadic activity tended to be smaller in the first ~15 sessions (average activity from −0.5 to −0.1s before saccade onset=18.6 spikes/s from sessions 1–15 and 31.3 spikes/s from sessions 16–160, t-test p=0.0157 for monkey C; 27.0 spikes/s from sessions 1–15 and 48.6 sp/s from sessions 16–130, p=0.0024 for monkey Z) but then remained relatively stable throughout the rest of training (”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    For both monkeys, the value of the motion-sensitive term grew as a function of training session in a similar manner for data from behaviour and LIP but not MT.

    “For both monkeys, the value of this motion-sensitive term grew as a function of training session in a similar manner for data from behaviour and LIP but not MT (Fig. 6b,c; monkey C: correlation coefficient between MT and behaviour r=0.03, H0: r=0 using Fisher’s Z transformation, p=0.7874; LIP and behaviour r=0.59, p<10−12; monkey Z: MT and behaviour r=−0.14, p=0.2911; LIP and behaviour r=0.60, p<”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    The pattern of coherence-specific changes in LIP was similar to the pattern of coherence-specific behavioural improvements: both the rate of rise of stimulus-driven LIP responses and discrimination performance increased as a function of training session for most non-zero coherences, with greater increases for higher coherences.

    “The pattern of coherence-specific changes in LIP was similar to the pattern of coherence-specific behavioural improvements: both the rate of rise of stimulus-driven LIP responses and discrimination performance increased as a function of training session for most non-zero coherences, with greater increases for higher coherences (H0: slope of a linear regression between session number and either”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    In MT, individual neurons responded similarly to motion stimuli before and throughout training, with average sensitivity similar to that of trained monkeys.

    “In MT, individual neurons responded similarly to motion stimuli before and throughout training, with, on average, a sensitivity that was similar to that of trained monkeys.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    Throughout training, performance improved significantly for all non-zero coherences for monkey C and for 12.8-99.9% coherence for monkey Z.

    “Indeed, throughout training, performance improved significantly for all non-zero coherences for monkey C and for 12.8–99.9% coherence for monkey Z (linear regression of percent correct per coherence with training session, H0: slope=0, p<0.05).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results

    A small number of simultaneously recorded pairs of MT neurons provide preliminary evidence that the degree of correlation is similar before and during training and does not increase over the course of training.

    “However, a small number of simultaneously recorded pairs of MT neurons provide preliminary evidence that the degree of correlation is similar before (mean±SEM correlation coefficient r=0.16±0.06, n=8) and during (r=0.18±0.04, n=9) training and does not increase over the course of training (linear regression, H0: slope=0, p=0.5728).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion

    Both behaviour and LIP responses continued to evolve well after the visuomotor association was established, together reflecting improved sensitivity to weak motion.

    “we showed that both behaviour and LIP responses continued to evolve well after the visuomotor association was established, together reflecting improved sensitivity to weak motion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results

    We used a time-dependent cumulative Weibull function to estimate discrimination threshold that takes into account associative (high-coherence) errors and thus can indicate changes in threshold distinct from changes in associative learning or lapses of attention.

    “To further quantify improvements in performance with training, we used a time-dependent cumulative Weibull function (Eq. 1 and solid lines in Fig. 2a,b) to estimate the discrimination threshold, which is the motion strength at which the monkey achieved ~82% correct for a 1-s viewing duration, for each session. This function takes into account associative (high-coherence) errors (λ in Eq. 1) and”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Results

    In trained monkeys, MT and LIP play different but complementary roles in forming the direction decision: MT provides sensory evidence used to form the decision, whereas LIP accumulates and interprets the sensory evidence to form the categorical judgment that instructs behaviour.

    “In trained monkeys, MT and LIP are thought to play different but complementary roles in forming the direction decision: MT (possibly in tandem with other motion-sensitive areas like the middle superior temporal area, or MST) provides sensory evidence used to form the decision, whereas LIP (possibly in tandem with other sensory-oculomotor areas like the FEF and superior colliculus) accumulates and”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] Gold, J.I. & Shadlen, M.N. The neural basis of decision making. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 535–574 (2007). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    Training does not affect the representation of sensory evidence in MT directly but effectively scales its output, providing increasingly sensitive evidence to the decision variable in LIP used to guide behaviour.

    “A straightforward interpretation of this result is that training does not affect the representation of sensory evidence in MT directly but effectively scales its output, providing increasingly sensitive evidence to the decision variable in LIP used to guide behaviour.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Results

    We minimized changes in the stimulus configuration across sessions by selecting neurons with consistent tuning properties, including receptive field location and direction preference of MT neurons and response field location of LIP neurons.

    “Within this constraint, we sought to minimize changes in the stimulus configuration across sessions by selecting neurons with consistent tuning properties, including receptive field (RF) location and direction preference of MT neurons and response field location of LIP neurons (Fig. S1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results

    Perceptual learning can be specific by virtue of what is learned (in this case, the LIP decision variable) and need not involve changes in the sensory representation (direction-selective responses in area MT).

    “which is consistent with the idea that perceptual learning can be specific by virtue of what is learned (in this case, the LIP decision variable) and need not involve changes in the sensory representation (direction-selective responses in area MT)3.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Mollon, J.D. & Danilova, M.V. Three remarks on perceptual learning. Spat. Vis. 10, 51–58 (1996). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Results

    Perceptual learning is typically specific to the stimulus attributes used during training, including motion direction in a direction-discrimination task.

    “Perceptual learning is typically specific to the stimulus attributes used during training, including motion direction in a direction-discrimination task33.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] Ball, K. & Sekuler, R. A specific and enduring improvement in visual motion discrimination. Science 218, 697–698 (1982). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Results

    Training both established and then shaped the sensory-driven responses in LIP sensory-motor neurons.

    “Because these neurons were selected based on spatially tuned pre-saccadic activity (see Methods, Fig. S5), this result implies that training both established and then shaped the sensory-driven responses in these sensory-motor neurons.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Results

    Training occurred only while the responses of at least one MT or LIP neuron were isolated and recorded, allowing direct, session-by-session comparisons of behavioural and neuronal performance as training progressed.

    “Training occurred only while the responses of at least one MT or LIP neuron were isolated and recorded, allowing us to make direct, session-by-session comparisons of behavioural and neuronal performance as training progressed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Larger effects have been found in V1 of human subjects using fMRI.

    “larger effects have been found in V1 of human subjects using fMRI36”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36] Furmanski, C.S., Schluppeck, D. & Engel, S.A. Learning strengthens the response of primary visual cortex to simple patterns. Curr. Biol. 14, 573–578 (2004). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    MT has an established role in task performance.

    “the established role of MT in task performance16–19”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [16] Britten, K.H., Shadlen, M.N., Newsome, W.T. & Movshon, J.A. The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. J. Neurosci. 12, 4745–4765 (1992). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] Britten, K.H., Newsome, W.T., Shadlen, M.N., Celebrini, S. & Movshon, J.A. A relationship between behavioral choice and the visual responses of neurons in macaque MT. Vis. Neurosci. 13, 87–100 (1996). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [18] Newsome, W.T. & Pare, E.B. A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT). J. Neurosci. 8, 2201–2211 (1988). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19] Salzman, C.D., Britten, K.H. & Newsome, W.T. Cortical microstimulation influences perceptual judgments of motion direction. Nature 346, 174–177 (1990). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Of the learning-induced changes previously found in V1, attentional modulation appears to play a primary role.

    “Of the learning-induced changes that have been found previously in V1, attentional modulation appears to play a primary role8.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] Crist, R.E., Li, W. & Gilbert, C.D. Learning to see: experience and attention in primary visual cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 4, 519–525 (2001). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § Discussion

    Early visual cortical areas are distinguished from primary somatosensory and auditory cortices, which in both monkeys and humans can show dramatic changes with perceptual learning.

    “Our results also further distinguish early visual cortical areas from primary somatosensory and auditory cortices, which in both monkeys and humans can show dramatic changes with perceptual learning5, 6, 37–39.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [5] Recanzone, G.H., Schreiner, C.E. & Merzenich, M.M. Plasticity in the frequency representation of primary auditory cortex following discrimination training in adult owl monkeys. J. Neurosci. 13, 87–103 (1993). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Recanzone, G.H., Merzenich, M.M., Jenkins, W.M., Grajski, K.A. & Dinse, H.R. Topographic reorganization of the hand representation in cortical area 3b owl monkeys trained in a frequency-discrimination task. J. Neurophysiol. 67, 1031–1056 (1992). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [37] Pleger, B. et al. Functional imaging of perceptual learning in human primary and secondary somatosensory cortex. Neuron 40, 643–653 (2003). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [38] Bao, S., Chang, E.F., Woods, J. & Merzenich, M.M. Temporal plasticity in the primary auditory cortex induced by operant perceptual learning. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 974–981 (2004). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [39] Blake, D.T., Heiser, M.A., Caywood, M. & Merzenich, M.M. Experience-dependent adult cortical plasticity requires cognitive association between sensation and reward. Neuron 52, 371–381 (2006). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    LIP plays a multitude of cognitive and sensory-motor roles.

    “LIP plays a multitude of cognitive and sensory-motor roles that could, in principle, change during training and account for the changes in LIP responses during motion viewing 20–22.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [20] Colby, C.L. & Goldberg, M.E. Space and attention in parietal cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 22, 319–349 (1999). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Platt, M.L. & Glimcher, P.W. Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex. Nature 400, 233–238 (1999). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [22] Snyder, L.H., Batista, A.P. & Andersen, R.A. Intention-related activity in the posterior parietal cortex: a review. Vision Res. 40, 1433–1441 (2000). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    In trained monkeys, multiple brain areas including LIP, the superior colliculus and parts of the prefrontal cortex including the FEF exhibit similar sensory-motor responses during performance of the discrimination task.

    “In trained monkeys, multiple brain areas including LIP, the superior colliculus and parts of the prefrontal cortex including the FEF exhibit similar sensory-motor responses during performance of the discrimination task24, 25, 27, 28.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [24] Shadlen, M.N. & Newsome, W.T. Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 86, 1916–1936 (2001). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] Roitman, J.D. & Shadlen, M.N. Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task. J. Neurosci. 22, 9475–9489 (2002). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [27] Horwitz, G.D. & Newsome, W.T. Separate signals for target selection and movement specification in the superior colliculus. Science 284, 1158–1161 (1999). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Kim, J.N. & Shadlen, M.N. Neural correlates of a decision in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the macaque. Nat. Neurosci. 2, 176–185 (1999). source

      Not checked in the free run.

25 of 25

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Our understanding of the neural plasticity underlying perceptual learning is incomplete.

    “Despite the prevalence of this phenomenon, called perceptual learning, our understanding of the underlying neural plasticity is incomplete.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changes in higher stages of processing that contribute to decision-making and attention have not been identified directly in the brain.

    “However, such changes have not been identified directly in the brain.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Learning a stimulus-response association establishes functional connectivity from neurons that represent the sensory stimulus to neurons that control the motor response.

    “Learning a stimulus-response association establishes functional connectivity from neurons that represent the sensory stimulus to neurons that control the motor response.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Sc and Si are normally distributed with variances that scale with their mean.

    “We assume that Sc and Si are normally distributed with variances that scale with their mean”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Sc and Si are independent.

    “If Sc and Si are independent and normally distributed”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    LIP neurons pool from an unknown number of MT neurons.

    “from individual LIP neurons that were assumed to pool from an unknown number of MT neurons”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Behavioural data reflect both MT and LIP contributions.

    “from behavioural data assumed to reflect both MT and LIP contributions”
7 of 7

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?

  • This accumulation is encoded in the firing rates of LIP neurons with response fields aligned to the choice targets representing the direction alternatives.

    “This accumulation is encoded in the firing rates of LIP neurons with response fields aligned to the choice targets representing the direction alternatives (18, 55–57).”

    From Representation of Confidence Associated with a Decision by Neurons in the Parietal Cortex (2009) · cites this paper as [57]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Law, C.-T., & Gold, J. I.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Gold, Joshua I
ORCID
Gold, Joshua I
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2008-03-09
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
505-513
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
DOI
10.1038/nn2070
PMC
PMC2424192
OpenAlex
W2103314569
Semantic Scholar
9320464b98ae6d580af8a38d93a505c68c71179d
Cited by
516
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 43
FWCI
16.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY015260, T32EY007035)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
perceptual learning, middle temporal area, lateral intraparietal area, saccade selection, motion-sensitive neurons, neuroplasticity, sensorimotor integration, decision-making, macaque
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Brain Mapping, Discrimination Learning, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Macaca mulatta, Motion Perception, Parietal Lobe, Psychomotor Performance, Temporal Lobe

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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