CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,615Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionMultisensory perception and integration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Neural Mechanisms of Spatial Selective Attention in Areas V1, V2, and V4 of Macaque Visual Cortex

Luck, Steven J., Chelazzi, Leonardo, Hillyard, Steven A., Desimone, Robert·1997·Journal of Neurophysiology
DOI 10.1152/jn.1997.77.1.24
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many neurons in extrastriate visual cortex have large receptive fields, and this may lead to significant computational problems whenever multiple stimuli fall within a single field. Previous studies have suggested that when multiple stimuli fall within a cell's receptive field, they compete for the cell's response in a manner that can be biased in favor of attended stimuli. In the present study we examined this role of attention in areas V1, V2, and V4 of macaque monkeys with the use of a behavioral paradigm in which attention was directed to one of two stimulus locations. When two stimuli were presented simultaneously inside the cell's receptive field (which could be accomplished only in areas V2 and V4), we found that the cell's response was strongly influenced by which of the two stimuli was attended. The size of this attention effect was reduced when the attended and ignored stimuli were presented sequentially rather than simultaneously. In addition, the effects became very weak and inconsistent in these areas when only one of the two stimuli was located inside the receptive field. Attention thus modulated sensory responses primarily when two or more simultaneous stimuli competed for access to a neuron's receptive field. As in areas V2 and V4, attention did not modulate sensory responses in area V1 when only a single stimulus was inside the receptive field. In addition, the small receptive fields in this area precluded the simultaneous presentation of attended and ignored stimuli inside the receptive field, making it impossible to determine whether attention effects would be observed under the conditions that led to consistent attention effects in areas V2 and V4. Spontaneous firing rates in areas V2 and V4 were found to be 30-40% higher when attention was directed inside rather than outside the receptive field, even when no stimulus was present in the receptive field. Spontaneous firing rates also varied according to the particular location within the receptive field that was attended. These shifts in spontaneous activity may reflect a top-down signal that biases responses in favor of stimuli at the attended location.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1997.77.1.24

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Chelazzi L., 1994, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr., 20, 1054
  2. Crick F., 1990, Semin. Neurosci., 2, 263
  3. Nicholas J., 1996, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr., 22, 1614
  4. 10.1037/0096-1523.12.3.361 · DOI
  5. Reynolds J., 1994, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr., 20, 1054
  6. Reynolds J., 1995, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr., 21, 1759
  7. Reynolds J., 1996, Soc. Neurosci. Abstr., 22, 1197

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 999

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Luck, S. J., Chelazzi, L., Hillyard, S. A., & Desimone, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1997-01-01
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
24-42
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
DOI
10.1152/jn.1997.77.1.24
OpenAlex
W2131744263
Cited by
1,615
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 65 · 2012: 59
FWCI
28.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-25594)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS17778)
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
spatial selective attention, visual cortex, area V1, V2, area V4, spontaneous firing rate, macaque, extrastriate cortex
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Cues, Electrodes, Implanted, Evoked Potentials, Visual, Eye Movements, Macaca mulatta, Male, Neurons, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Space Perception, Visual Cortex

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