Cited by 696Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Visual attention mediated by biased competition in extrastriate visual cortex

Open access
Desimone, Robert·1998·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

According to conventional neurobiological accounts of visual attention, attention serves to enhance extrastriate neuronal responses to a stimulus at one spatial location in the visual field. However, recent results from recordings in extrastriate cortex of monkeys suggest that any enhancing effect of attention is best understood in the context of competitive interactions among neurons representing all of the stimuli present in the visual field. These interactions can be biased in favour of behaviourally relevant stimuli as a result of many different processes, both spatial and non–spatial, and both bottom–up and top–down. The resolution of this competition results in the suppression of the neuronal representations of behaviourally irrelevant stimuli in extrastriate cortex. A main source of top–down influence may derive from neuronal systems underlying working memory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.1998.0280

Cites

98 of 98 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?

  • At the heart of the priority map concept is the idea that its activity profile determines the outcome of competition for neural representation.

    “At the heart of the priority map concept lies the idea that its activity profile determines the outcome of the brain’s intrinsically emergent property of competition for neural representation (Desimone, 1998; Desimone & Duncan, 1995).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Desimone, 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Desimone, R.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Desimone, Robert
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
1998-08-29
Volume
353
Issue
1373
Pages
1245-1255
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2031650972
Cited by
696
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 40
FWCI
5.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
visual attention, biased competition, extrastriate cortex, neuronal competition, top-down modulation, bottom-up processing, working memory, monkey visual cortex
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Attention, Feedback, Memory, Models, Biological, Visual Cortex, Visual Perception

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