Cited by 2,433Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionMultisensory perception and integration

Selective Attention Gates Visual Processing in the Extrastriate Cortex

Moran, Jeffrey, Desimone, Robert·1985·Science

Abstract

Single cells were recorded in the visual cortex of monkeys trained to attend to stimuli at one location in the visual field and ignore stimuli at another. When both locations were within the receptive field of a cell in prestriate area V4 or the inferior temporal cortex, the response to the unattended stimulus was dramatically reduced. Cells in the striate cortex were unaffected by attention. The filtering of irrelevant information from the receptive fields of extrastriate neurons may underlie the ability to identify and remember the properties of a particular object out of the many that may be represented on the retina.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.4023713

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • In determining a shape at a cued location, activity spreads in the opposite direction from regions representing the cue location to regions representing the cued shape.

    “Another example is the determination of a shape at a cued location. In this case, activity spreads in the opposite direction from regions that represent the location of the cue to the brain regions that represent the cued shape (Everling et al., 2002; Moran and Desimone, 1985).”

    From Conscious Processing and the Global Neuronal Workspace Hypothesis (2020) · cites this paper as Moran and Desimone, 1985

  • Later in time, competition can be biased by top-down control-either by prioritizing a spatial location or the perceptual feature(s) summarized in an "attentional template".

    “Later in time, competition can be biased by top-down control—either by prioritizing a spatial location (Moran & Desimone, 1985) or the perceptual feature(s) summarized in an “attentional template” (Chelazzi, Duncan, Miller, & Desimone, 1998; Reynolds, Chelazzi, & Desimone, 1999).”

    From Selection history: How reward modulates selectivity of visual attention. (2018) · cites this paper as Moran & Desimone, 1985

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moran, J., & Desimone, R.
Affiliations
National Institute of Mental Health (US)
Venue
Science
Published
1985-08-23
Volume
229
Issue
4715
Pages
782-784
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2033118251
Cited by
2,433
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 68 · 2012: 71
FWCI
18.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
selective attention, visual attention, extrastriate cortex, area V4, inferior temporal cortex, primary visual cortex, receptive fields, single-unit recording, object recognition, visual memory
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Brain Mapping, Macaca mulatta, 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