Cited by 83Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Neuronal correlates of the set-size effect in monkey lateral intraparietal area

Open access
Balan, Puiu F, Oristaglio, Jeff, Schneider, David M, Gottlieb, Jacqueline·2008·PLoS Biology

Abstract

It has long been known that the brain is limited in the amount of sensory information that it can process at any given time. A well-known form of capacity limitation in vision is the set-size effect, whereby the time needed to find a target increases in the presence of distractors. The set-size effect implies that inputs from multiple objects interfere with each other, but the loci and mechanisms of this interference are unknown. Here we show that the set-size effect has a neural correlate in competitive visuo-visual interactions in the lateral intraparietal area, an area related to spatial attention and eye movements. Monkeys performed a covert visual search task in which they discriminated the orientation of a visual target surrounded by distractors. Neurons encoded target location, but responses associated with both target and distractors declined as a function of distractor number (set size). Firing rates associated with the target in the receptive field correlated with reaction time both within and across set sizes. The findings suggest that competitive visuo-visual interactions in areas related to spatial attention contribute to capacity limitations in visual searches.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060158

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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 that task, the informative cue had value, and lateral intraparietal area neurons continued selecting the cue, showing higher activity if the target E rather than a distractor was in their receptive field.

    “Nevertheless the informative cue had value, and neurons in the lateral intraparietal area continued selecting the cue, showing much higher activity if the “E” rather than a distractor was in their receptive field (Balan and Gottlieb, 2009; Balan et al., 2008; Oristaglio et al., 2006) (Fig. 4B).”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Balan et al., 2008

  • Neural responses to target selection can be flexibly linked with action, being coupled with a shift of gaze, a skeletal response, or no immediate motor action.

    “Experiments that dissociate visual selection from motor output show that neural responses to target selection can be flexibly linked with action – for example, being coupled with a shift of gaze, with a skeletal response or with no immediate motor action (Balan et al., 2008; Bisley and Goldberg, 2003; Schall et al., 2011).”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Balan et al., 2008

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Balan, P. F., Oristaglio, J., Schneider, D. M., & Gottlieb, J.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Gottlieb, Jacqueline
Venue
PLoS Biology
Published
2008-07-01
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
e158
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W1982694564
Cited by
83
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
FWCI
4.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • W. M. Keck Foundation
  • McKnight Foundation
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY014697)
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
set-size effect, lateral intraparietal area, visual search, distractor interference, capacity constraints, spatial attention, receptive fields, reaction time
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Discrimination, Psychological, Female, Macaca mulatta, Male, Neurons, Parietal Lobe, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Sensory Thresholds, Size Perception, Visual Perception, Contrast Sensitivity

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