Cited by 77Multisensory perception and integrationVisual perception and processing mechanismsTactile and Sensory Interactions

Analogous intermediate shape coding in vision and touch

Open access
Yau, Jeffrey M., Pasupathy, Anitha, Fitzgerald, Paul J., Hsiao, Steven S., Connor, Charles E.·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We recognize, understand, and interact with objects through both vision and touch. Conceivably, these two sensory systems encode object shape in similar ways, which could facilitate cross-modal communication. To test this idea, we studied single neurons in macaque monkey intermediate visual (area V4) and somatosensory (area SII) cortex, using matched shape stimuli. We found similar patterns of shape sensitivity characterized by tuning for curvature direction. These parallel tuning patterns imply analogous shape coding mechanisms in intermediate visual and somatosensory cortex.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0904186106

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Visual and cutaneous representations of shape are analogous in the periphery and in cortex, both involving decomposition of shape into oriented contours and extraction of increasingly complex features such as curvature.

    “Not only are the visual and cutaneous representations of shape analogous in the periphery, they are also analogous in cortex, both involving the decomposition of shape into a set of oriented contours (Bensmaia et al., 2008), then extracting increasingly complex stimulus features, such as curvature (Yau et al., 2013;2009).”

    From Biomimetic approaches to bionic touch through a peripheral nerve interface (2015) · cites this paper as Yau et al., 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yau, J. M., Pasupathy, A., Fitzgerald, P. J., Hsiao, S. S., & Connor, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-09-22
Volume
106
Issue
38
Pages
16457-16462
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2035261121
Cited by
77
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
cross-modal correspondence, object shape representation, area V4, single-unit recording, macaque, visual cortex, somatosensory cortex
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Form Perception, Macaca mulatta, Motion Perception, Neural Pathways, Neurons, Photic Stimulation, Physical Stimulation, Somatosensory Cortex, Touch, Vision, Ocular, Visual Cortex, Visual Pathways, Visual Perception, Principal Component Analysis, Pattern Recognition, Physiological

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