CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 726Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Responses of Neurons in Inferior Temporal Cortex During Memory-Guided Visual Search

Chelazzi, Leonardo, Duncan, John, Miller, Earl K., Desimone, Robert·1998·Journal of Neurophysiology
DOI 10.1152/jn.1998.80.6.2918
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Chelazzi, Leonardo, John Duncan, Earl K. Miller, and Robert Desimone. Responses of neurons in inferior temporal cortex during memory-guided visual search. J. Neurophysiol. 80: 2918–2940, 1998. A typical scene will contain many different objects, few of which are relevant to behavior at any given moment. Thus attentional mechanisms are needed to select relevant objects for visual processing and control over behavior. We examined this role of attention in the inferior temporal cortex of macaque monkeys, using a visual search paradigm. While the monkey maintained fixation, a cue stimulus was presented at the center of gaze, followed by a blank delay period. After the delay, an array of two to five choice stimuli was presented extrafoveally, and the monkey was rewarded for detecting a target stimulus matching the cue. The behavioral response was a saccadic eye movement to the target in one version of the task and a lever release in another. The array was composed of one “good” stimulus (effective in driving the cell when presented alone) and one or more “poor” stimuli (ineffective in driving the cell when presented alone). Most cells showed higher delay activity after a good stimulus used as the cue than after a poor stimulus. The baseline activity of cells was also higher preceding a good cue, if the animal expected it to occur. This activity may depend on a top-down bias in favor of cells coding the relevant stimulus. When the choice array was presented, most cells showed suppressive interactions between the stimuli as well as strong attention effects. When the choice array was presented in the contralateral visual field, most cells initially responded the same, regardless of which stimulus was the target. However, within 150–200 ms of array onset, responses were determined by the target stimulus. If the target was the good stimulus, the response to the array became equal to the response to the good stimulus presented alone. If the target was a poor stimulus, the response approached the response to that stimulus presented alone. Thus the influence of the nontarget stimulus was eliminated. These effects occurred well in advance of the behavioral response. When the array was positioned with stimuli on opposite sides of the vertical meridian, the contralateral stimulus appeared to dominate the response, and this dominant effect could not be overcome by attention. Overall, the results support a “biased competition” model of attention, according to which 1) objects in the visual field compete for representation in the cortex, and 2) this competition is biased in favor of the behaviorally relevant object by virtue of “top-down” feedback from structures involved in working memory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1998.80.6.2918

Cites

56 of 56 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?

  • 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 Chelazzi, Duncan, Miller, & Desimone, 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chelazzi, L., Duncan, J., Miller, E. K., & Desimone, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1998-12-01
Volume
80
Issue
6
Pages
2918-2940
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
DOI
10.1152/jn.1998.80.6.2918
OpenAlex
W2143532311
Cited by
726
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 28
FWCI
10.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
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
inferior temporal cortex, visual attention, biased competition model, top-down feedback, working memory, delay activity, object recognition, macaque, saccades
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Conditioning, Operant, Cues, Fixation, Ocular, Macaca mulatta, Male, Memory, Neurons, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Retina, Temporal Lobe, 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