Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,452

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

Neural Mechanisms of Visual Working Memory in Prefrontal Cortex of the Macaque

Open access
Miller, Earl K., Erickson, Cynthia A., Desimone, Robert·1996·The Journal of Neuroscience
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.16-16-05154.1996
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Prefrontal (PF) cells were studied in monkeys performing a delayed matching to sample task, which requires working memory. The stimuli were complex visual patterns and to solve the task, the monkeys had to discriminate among the stimuli, maintain a memory of the sample stimulus during the delay periods, and evaluate whether a test stimulus matched the sample presented earlier in the trial. PF cells have properties consistent with a role in all three of these operations. Approximately 25% of the cells responded selectively to different visual stimuli. Half of the cells showed heightened activity during the delay after the sample and, for many of these cells, the magnitude of delay activity was selective for different samples. Finally, more than half of the cells responded differently to the test stimuli depending on whether they matched the sample. Because inferior temporal (IT) cortex also is important for working memory, we compared PF cells with IT cells studied in the same task. Compared with IT cortex, PF responses were less often stimulus-selective but conveyed more information about whether a given test stimulus was a match to the sample. Furthermore, sample-selective delay activity in PF cortex was maintained throughout the trial even when other test stimuli intervened during the delay, whereas delay activity in IT cortex was disrupted by intervening stimuli. The results suggest that PF cortex plays a primary role in working memory tasks and may be a source of feedback inputs to IT cortex, biasing activity in favor of behaviorally relevant stimuli.

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.16-16-05154.1996

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

Items 101–131 of 131

Metadata

Authors
Miller, E. K., Erickson, C. A., & Desimone, R.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Society for Neuroscience
Published
1996-08-15
Volume
16
Issue
16
Pages
5154-5167
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
DOI
10.1523/jneurosci.16-16-05154.1996
OpenAlex
W1907121963
Cited by
1,452
References
5
FWCI
17.15
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

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.