Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Processing Objects at Different Levels of Specificity

Tyler, L. K., Stamatakis, E. A., Bright, P., Acres, K., Abdallah, S., Rodd, J. M., Moss, H. E.·2004·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

How objects are represented and processed in the brain is a central topic in cognitive neuroscience. Previous studies have shown that knowledge of objects is represented in a featurebased distributed neural system primarily involving occipital and temporal cortical regions. Research with nonhuman primates suggest that these features are structured in a hierarchical system with posterior neurons in the inferior temporal cortex representing simple features and anterior neurons in the perirhinal cortex representing complex conjunctions of features (Bussey & Saksida, 2002; Murray & Bussey, 1999). On this account, the perirhinal cortex plays a crucial role in object identification by integrating information from different sensory systems into more complex polymodal feature conjunctions. We tested the implications of these claims for human object processing in an event-related fMRI study in which we presented colored pictures of common objects for 19 subjects to name at two levels of specificity-basic and domain. We reasoned that domain-level naming requires access to a coarsergrained representation of objects, thus involving only posterior regions of the inferior temporal cortex. In contrast, basic-level naming requires finer-grained discrimination to differentiate between similar objects, and thus should involve anterior temporal regions, including the perirhinal cortex. We found that object processing always activated the fusiform gyrus bilaterally, irrespective of the task, whereas the perirhinal cortex was only activated when the task required finer-grained discriminations. These results suggest that the same kind of hierarchical structure, which has been proposed for object processing in the monkey temporal cortex, functions in the human.

Overview

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 · 10.1162/089892904322926692

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Tyler, L. K., Stamatakis, E. A., Bright, P., Acres, K., Abdallah, S., Rodd, J. M., & Moss, H. E.
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2004-04-01
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
351-362
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2117551638
Cited by
257
References
5
FWCI
7.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Processing Objects at Different Levels of Specificity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/089892904322926692
The paper
Tyler, L. K., Stamatakis, E. A., Bright, P., Acres, K., Abdallah, S., Rodd, J. M., & Moss, H. E. (2004). Processing Objects at Different Levels of Specificity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904322926692

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.