CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 188Visual perception and processing mechanismsSpatial Neglect and Hemispheric DysfunctionVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impaired attentional selection following lesions to human pulvinar: Evidence for homology between human and monkey

Open access
Snow, Jacqueline C., Allen, Harriet A., Rafal, Robert D., Humphreys, Glyn W.·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0810086106PMC PMC2656203
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examined the contributions of the human pulvinar to goal directed selection of visual targets in 3 patients with chronic, unilateral lesions involving topographic maps in the ventral pulvinar. Observers completed 2 psychophysical tasks in which they discriminated the orientation of a lateralized target grating in the presence of vertically-aligned distracters. In experiment 1, where distracter contrast was varied while target contrast remained constant, the patients' contralesional contrast thresholds for discriminating the orientation of grating stimuli were elevated only when the task required selection of a visual target in the face of competition from a salient distracter. Attentional selectivity was restored in the patients in experiment 2 where target contrast was varied while distracter contrast remained constant. These observations provide the first evidence that the human pulvinar plays a necessary role in modulating physical saliency in attentional selection, and supports a homology in global pulvinar structure between humans and monkey.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0810086106

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1155/2002/917570 · DOI
  2. 10.1002/cne.902170203 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 188

Related

Metadata

Authors
Snow, J. C., Allen, H. A., Rafal, R. D., & Humphreys, G. W.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-03-10
Volume
106
Issue
10
Pages
4054-4059
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0810086106
PMC
PMC2656203
OpenAlex
W2090263161
Cited by
188
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 17
FWCI
5.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Spatial Neglect and Hemispheric Dysfunction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
pulvinar, selective attention, visual attention, topographic map, orientation discrimination, contrast threshold
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Animals, Haplorhini, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Orientation, Photic Stimulation, Visual Fields, Pulvinar

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