Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of visual stimulation and memory on neurons of the hippocampal formation and the neighboring parahippocampal gyrus and inferior temporal cortex of the primate

Open access
Riches, IP, Wilson, FA, Brown, MW·1991·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The activity of 736 single neurons was recorded from the hippocampal formation (HF), the rhinal cortex (RH), the medial and anterior inferior temporal cortex (TE), or areas TF and TH of the parahippocampal gyrus (PHG) of monkeys during the performance of a delayed matching to sample task. The results indicate differences between the areas in their contributions to sensory processing and memory. Of the neurons, 55% responded to either the first (S1) and/or the second (S2) of the two successively presented visual stimuli. The proportion of responsive neurons and the proportion of neurons that responded selectively on the basis of shape or color (but not size) were significantly higher in areas TE + RH than in HF + PHG. The responses to S1 differed from those to S2 for 18% of the total sample: of these differentially responsive neurons, 66% of the TE + RH neurons responded more strongly to S1 (the sample presentation, allowing stimulus acquisition), whereas 71% of the HF + PHG neurons responded more strongly to S2 (the match/nonmatch comparison, when the behavioral decision could be made). Of 239 TE + RH neurons recorded during the delayed matching task or when objects were shown, 12% displayed evidence of memory for the previous occurrence of stimuli by responding strongly to the first, but significantly less strongly to subsequent presentations of visual stimuli that were novel or had not been seen recently. In contrast, none (0%) of 328 neurons so tested in HF and PHG had a response that declined significantly on stimulus repetition. For six (86%) of seven TE + RH neurons tested, the decrement in response persisted even after distraction by intervening presentations of other stimuli. Further evidence of information storage was found for 7 (33%) of 21 neurons for which responses to the first presentations of unfamiliar objects were significantly greater than to the first presentations of very familiar objects, even though the familiar objects had not been seen for greater than 15 min.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.11-06-01763.1991

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Riches, I., Wilson, F., & Brown, M.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1991-06-01
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
1763-1779
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1935489410
Cited by
334
References
4
FWCI
16.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: The effects of visual stimulation and memory on neurons of the hippocampal formation and the neighboring parahippocampal gyrus and inferior temporal cortex of the primate. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.11-06-01763.1991
The paper
Riches, I., Wilson, F., & Brown, M. (1991). The effects of visual stimulation and memory on neurons of the hippocampal formation and the neighboring parahippocampal gyrus and inferior temporal cortex of the primate. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.11-06-01763.1991

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.