Cited by 60Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionMultisensory perception and integration

Visual adaptation and novelty responses in the superior colliculus: Adaptation in the SC

Open access
Boehnke, Susan E., Berg, David J., Marino, Robert A., Baldi, Pierre F., Itti, Laurent, Munoz, Douglas P.·2011·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The brain's ability to ignore repeating, often redundant, information while enhancing novel information processing is paramount to survival. When stimuli are repeatedly presented, the response of visually sensitive neurons decreases in magnitude, that is, neurons adapt or habituate, although the mechanism is not yet known. We monitored the activity of visual neurons in the superior colliculus (SC) of rhesus monkeys who actively fixated while repeated visual events were presented. We dissociated adaptation from habituation as mechanisms of the response decrement by using a Bayesian model of adaptation, and by employing a paradigm including rare trials that included an oddball stimulus that was either brighter or dimmer. If the mechanism is adaptation, response recovery should be seen only for the brighter stimulus; if the mechanism is habituation, response recovery ('dishabituation') should be seen for both the brighter and dimmer stimuli. We observed a reduction in the magnitude of the initial transient response and an increase in response onset latency with stimulus repetition for all visually responsive neurons in the SC. Response decrement was successfully captured by the adaptation model, which also predicted the effects of presentation rate and rare luminance changes. However, in a subset of neurons with sustained activity in response to visual stimuli, a novelty signal akin to dishabituation was observed late in the visual response profile for both brighter and dimmer stimuli, and was not captured by the model. This suggests that SC neurons integrate both rapidly discounted information about repeating stimuli and novelty information about oddball events, to support efficient selection in a cluttered dynamic world.

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 · 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07805.x

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Other forms of automatic attention produced by salience or surprise are vital heuristics for allocating resources in very uncertain conditions, when the brain has not yet learnt how to learn.

    “This raises the possibility that other forms of automatic attention that are produced by salience or surprise (Boehnke et al., 2011; Karacan and Hayhoe, 2008; Wittmann et al., 2008), rather than being mere weaknesses of a control mechanism, are vital heuristics for allocating resources in very uncertain conditions, when the brain has not yet learnt how to learn.”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Boehnke et al., 2011

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
Boehnke, S. E., Berg, D. J., Marino, R. A., Baldi, P. F., Itti, L., & Munoz, D. P.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Boehnke, Susan E.
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-22
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
766-779
ISSN
0953-816X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1532367786
Cited by
60
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (90910_1)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007443, LM-07443-01)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
superior colliculus, visual adaptation, habituation, dishabituation, novelty detection, oddball paradigm, response recovery, luminance changes, presentation rate, rhesus monkeys
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, Behavior, Animal, Computer Simulation, Habituation, Psychophysiologic, Macaca mulatta, Male, Neurons, Neuropsychological Tests, ROC Curve, Superior Colliculi, Vision, Ocular, 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