Cited by 1,224Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural dynamics and brain function

Top-down influences on visual processing

Open access
Gilbert, Charles D., Li, Wu·2013·Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract

Re-entrant or feedback pathways between cortical areas carry rich and varied information about behavioural context, including attention, expectation, perceptual tasks, working memory and motor commands. Neurons receiving such inputs effectively function as adaptive processors that are able to assume different functional states according to the task being executed. Recent data suggest that the selection of particular inputs, representing different components of an association field, enable neurons to take on different functional roles. In this Review, we discuss the various top-down influences exerted on the visual cortical pathways and highlight the dynamic nature of the receptive field, which allows neurons to carry information that is relevant to the current perceptual demands.

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/nrn3476

Cites

152 of 152 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 Bayesian framing has difficulty accounting for the context-sensitivity and task-dependence of neural responses.

    “Perhaps most problematically, the Bayesian framing has difficulty accounting for the context-sensitivity and task-dependence of neural responses. The same neural circuits may perform different functions depending on behavioral context, attentional state, or motivational factors—a flexibility that sits uncomfortably with strict Bayesian formulations (Gilbert and Li 2013).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Gilbert and Li 2013

    The “Perceptual task” section (page unavailable) says that neuronal tuning changes with the task even when the stimulus is identical, and that neurons can serve different functions in different behavioral contexts. The cited passages do not say that Bayesian formulations have difficulty accounting for this flexibility; the paper contrasts it with classical feedforward accounts instead. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Neural responses show remarkable context-sensitivity, with the same circuits serving different roles in processing different behavioral states, neuromodulatory influences, and task demands.

    “Neural responses show remarkable context-sensitivity, with the same circuits serving different roles in processing different behavioral states, neuromodulatory influences, and task demands (Bargmann 2012; Gilbert and Li 2013).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Gilbert and Li 2013

    The Perceptual task and Circuit mechanisms of top-down control sections (pages unavailable) describe neurons changing their functional roles with behavioral context and task demands. Our copy does not establish the claimed role of neuromodulatory influences; it discusses feedback and top-down control instead. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Humans usually pay more attention to high-level visual effects like layouts, colors, and the existence of contents rather than detailed content.

    “This suggests that humans usually pay more attention to highlevel visual effects like layouts, colors, and the existence of contents rather than the detailed content, reflecting the top-down processing (Gilbert and Li, 2013) of humans.”

    From Design2Code: Benchmarking Multimodal Code Generation for Automated Front-End Engineering (2025) · cites this paper as Gilbert and Li, 2013

    The ‘Object oriented and feature oriented attention’ section (page unavailable) describes attention to objects and features such as color, and links top-down processing to scene segmentation. It does not say humans usually favor layouts, colors, or the presence of content over detailed content. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Synchronization of firing across the cortical column is commonly observed during decision-making and is attributed to top-down feedback regulation.

    “Such synchronization of firing across the cortical column is commonly observed (32) during decision-making that is attributed to top–down feedback regulation (33, 34) that influences experience-derived predictions (10), establishment of attentional state (35) and working memory (36).”

    From Neural correlates of perceptual decision-making in the primary somatosensory cortex (2026) · cites this paper as [34]

    In “Circuit mechanisms of top-down control” (page unavailable), the paper says attention can increase synchronization within V4 and between the frontal eye fields and V4, and relates neural synchrony to connectivity shaped by top-down influences. It does not establish that firing across a cortical column is commonly synchronized during decision-making or that such synchronization is specifically caused by feedback regulation. The citing sentence places a separate citation on the observation of synchronization, but this source still supports the feedback explanation only in a narrower, task-dependent context. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Traditional theories of perceptual processing have failed to adequately explain why sensory cortices are infused with masses of descending connections.

    “Traditional theories of perceptual processing have failed to adequately explain why sensory cortices are infused with masses of descending connections.”

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
Gilbert, C. D., & Li, W.
Affiliations
  • Rockefeller University (US)
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Gilbert, Charles D.
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2013-04-18
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
350-363
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W1996938738
Cited by
1,224
References
152
Citations by year
2026: 105 · 2025: 122 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 95 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 9
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Eye Institute (R01EY007968, EY 007968)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
top-down effects, visual processing, feedback pathways, attention, expectations, perceptual tasks, working memory, motor signals, visual cortex, association fields, active vision
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Humans, Vision, Ocular, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception, Nonlinear Dynamics

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