CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 539Memory and Neural MechanismsMemory Processes and InfluencesVisual perception and processing mechanisms

The representation of stimulus familiarity in anterior inferior temporal cortex

Li, L., Miller, E. K., Desimone, R.·1993·Journal of Neurophysiology
DOI 10.1152/jn.1993.69.6.1918
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

1. The inferior temporal (IT) cortex plays an important role in both short- and long-term memory for visual patterns. Most previous studies of IT neurons have tested their responses in recency memory tasks, which require that the memory lasts only the length of a single behavioral trial, which may be < 1 s. To determine the role of IT neurons in longer lasting memories, we measured their responses to initially novel stimuli as the stimuli gradually became familiar to the animal. 2. Two rhesus monkeys were trained on a delayed matching to sample (DMS) task with several intervening stimuli between the sample and the final matching stimulus on each trial. The purpose of the task was to ensure that the animal attended to the stimuli and held them in memory, at least temporarily. Unlike in several previous studies, the focus was not on within-trial effects but rather on the incidental memories that built up across trials as the stimuli became familiar. Each cell was tested with a set of 20 novel stimuli (digitized pictures of objects) that the monkey had not seen before. These stimuli were used in a fixed order over the course of an hour-long recording session, and the number of intervening trials between repetitions of a given sample stimulus was varied. 3. The responses of about one-third of the cells recorded in anterior-ventral IT cortex declined systematically as the novel stimuli became familiar. After six to eight repetitions, responses reached a plateau that was approximately 40% of the peak response. Virtually all of these cells also showed selectivity for particular visual stimuli and thus were not "novelty detectors" in the sense of cells that respond to any novel stimulus. Rather, the responses of these cells were a joint function of familiarity and specific object features such as shape and color. A few cells showed increasing responses with repetition over the recording session, but these changes were accompanied by changes in baseline firing rate, suggesting that they were caused by nonspecific effects. 4. The decrement in response with familiarity was stimulus specific and bridged > 150 presentations of other stimuli, the maximum tested. For some cells the maximum decrement in response occurred for those stimuli that initially elicited the largest response. There was no significant change in response to stimuli that were already familiar. 5. The same cells that showed familiarity effects also showed reduced responses to the matching stimuli at the end of each trial, compared with the responses to the samples.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1993.69.6.1918

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • All over cortex, there is less spiking and smaller BOLD responses when a stimulus is repeated.

    “All over cortex, there is less spiking and smaller blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) responses when a stimulus is repeated (4–9).”

    From Layer and rhythm specificity for predictive routing (2020) · cites this paper as [6]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Li, L., Miller, E. K., & Desimone, R.
Affiliations
National Institute of Mental Health (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1993-06-01
Volume
69
Issue
6
Pages
1918-1929
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
DOI
10.1152/jn.1993.69.6.1918
OpenAlex
W1831238016
Cited by
539
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 22
FWCI
12.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
stimulus familiarity, visual memory, long-term memory, delayed matching-to-sample, object recognition, rhesus monkeys, neural responses
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebral Cortex, Conditioning, Operant, Macaca mulatta, Memory, Memory, Short-Term, Neurons, Psychomotor Performance, Regression Analysis, Temporal Lobe, Vision, Ocular

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