Cited by 824Visual perception and processing mechanismsNeural dynamics and brain functionMultisensory perception and integration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A computational analysis of the relationship between neuronal and behavioral responses to visual motion

Open access
Shadlen, MN, Britten, KH, Newsome, WT, Movshon, JA·1996·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

We have documented previously a close relationship between neuronal activity in the middle temporal visual area (MT or V5) and behavioral judgments of motion (Newsome et al., 1989; Salzman et al., 1990; Britten et al., 1992; Britten et al., 1996). We have now used numerical simulations to try to understand how neural signals in area MT support psychophysical decisions. We developed a model that pools neuronal responses drawn from our physiological data set and compares average responses in different pools to produce psychophysical decisions. The structure of the model allows us to assess the relationship between "neuronal" input signals and simulated psychophysical performance using the same methods we have applied to real experimental data. We sought to reconcile three experimental observations: psychophysical performance (threshold sensitivity to motion stimuli embedded in noise), a trial-by-trial covariation between the neural response and the monkey's choices, and a modest correlation between pairs of MT neurons in their variable responses to identical visual stimuli. Our results can be most accurately simulated if psychophysical decisions are based on pools of at least 100 weakly correlated sensory neurons. The neurons composing the pools must include a broader range of sensitivities than we encountered in our MT recordings, presumably because of the inclusion of neurons whose optimal stimulus is different from the one being discriminated. Central sources of noise degrade the signal-to-noise ratio of the pooled signal, but this degradation is relatively small compared with the noise typically carried by single cortical neurons. This suggests that our monkeys base near-threshold psychophysical judgments on signals carried by populations of weakly interacting neurons; these populations include many neurons that are not tuned optimally for the particular stimuli being discriminated.

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.16-04-01486.1996

Cites

45 of 45 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

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?

  • The observed weak trial-by-trial correlations between neural activity and decisions are probably explained by the tendency of neurons with similar response characteristics (in this case, RFs) to covary in their variable discharge.

    “the observed correlations are probably explained by the tendency of neurons with similar response characteristics (in this case, RFs) to covary in their variable discharge (Zohary et al., 1994;Shadlen et al., 1996;Parker and Newsome, 1998;Pezaris et al., 1999).”
  • The influence of a single neuron on the probability of a post-decision wager is expected to be small because it is one member of a large population of neurons that govern behavior.

    “The influence of a single neuron on the probability of a post-decision wager is expected to be small because it is but one member of a large population of neurons that govern the behavior, presumably (33–35).”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. J. Neurosci., February 15, 1996, 76(4):1486-1510
  2. J. Neurosci., February 15, 1996, 76(4):1466-1510
  3. J. Neurosci., February 15, 1996, 16(4):1486-1510

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shadlen, M., Britten, K., Newsome, W., & Movshon, J.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1996-02-15
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
1486-1510
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1765390228
Cited by
824
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 42
FWCI
9.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Eye Institute (EY 05603, R01EY002017, EY 02017)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (T32NS007158, NS-07158)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
middle temporal area, MT neurons, visual motion perception, motion direction discrimination, population coding, decision-making, neural noise, signal-to-noise ratio, neuronal response variability, psychophysical thresholds
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Macaca mulatta, Models, Neurological, Neuronal Plasticity, Statistics as Topic, Visual Cortex, 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