The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 109 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI
Open accessAbstract
Decision making can be conceptualized as the culmination of an integrative process in which evidence supporting different response options accumulates gradually over time. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate brain activity leading up to and during decisions about perceptual object identity. Pictures were revealed gradually and subjects signaled the time of recognition (T R ) with a button press. We examined the time course of T R -dependent activity to determine how brain regions tracked the timing of recognition. In several occipital regions, activity increased primarily as stimulus information increased, suggesting a role in lower-level sensory processing. In inferior temporal, frontal, and parietal regions, a gradual buildup in activity peaking in correspondence with T R suggested that these regions participated in the accumulation of evidence supporting object identity. In medial frontal cortex, anterior insula/frontal operculum, and thalamus, activity remained near baseline until T R , suggesting a relation to the moment of recognition or the decision itself. The findings dissociate neural processes that function in concert during perceptual recognition decisions.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using fMRI with gradually revealed pictures, this paper dissociates three neural profiles during perceptual recognition: sensory processors tracking stimulus information, accumulator regions whose activity builds up until recognition, and moment-of-recognition regions active only at the recognition decision. Recognition time (TR) systematically shifted onset/peak timing in accumulator and recognition regions, while sensory regions did not show TR-dependent onset changes.
Key findings
- Behavioral: Exp1 (n=12) had 620/704 picture trials with recognition during steps 1–7; 564 (91.0%) were verified accurate. Exp2 (n=13) had 985/1148 trials with recognition before VoA; 852 (86.5%) later verified. Most correct recognitions occurred in TR4–7.
- Cluster analysis of 73 Exp1 ROIs yielded four time-course clusters; the positive cluster contained 32 ROIs, later split by interpolation into sensory (5), accumulator (13), and moment-of-recognition (14) groups.
- Sensory ROIs (posterior occipital) had onset times that changed little across TR4–7 (mean 5.5, 5.2, 4.8, 5.2 s) and the widest responses (FWHM 15.7, 15.2, 14.6, 15.3 s). Accumulator ROIs (occipital/fusiform, dlPFC, PPL) showed TR-dependent buildup: onset 7.1, 7.0, 8.2, 8.6 s; peak 14.8, 16.5, 18.3, 20.0 s; leading-edge slope decreased 0.13, 0.11, 0.10, 0.10. Moment-of-recognition ROIs (meFG/pre-SMA, ACC, aI/fO, thalamus) had markedly later onsets as TR increased (8.5, 12.0, 13.3, 14.3 s), peaks 14.2, 16.3, 18.3, 20.2 s, and narrowest widths (7.1, 4.8, 5.7, 5.4 s).
- Statistical tests supported dissociation: onset showed a main effect of TR (F(2.5,73.4)=14.47, p<0.0001) and TR×region interaction (F(5.1,73.4)=10.91, p<0.0001); width differed by region type (F(2,29)=90.48, p<0.0001).
Methods
- Two fMRI experiments with gradual unmasking of 233 grayscale images over eight revelation steps; participants pressed a button when they recognized the picture (TR) and again at full revelation if earlier recognition was correct (VoA). Exp1 used within-trial jitter; Exp2 removed within-trial jitter and added trials.
- 31 right-handed native English speakers (18 female, age 19–29) began; 25 were analyzed after exclusions (12 Exp1, 13 Exp2). Imaging used a Siemens Allegra 3T scanner; data were analyzed with voxelwise GLM and repeated-measures ANOVA.
- Exp1 identified 73 ROIs by comparing TR and VoA activity; Exp2 extracted TR-dependent time courses from those ROIs. Hierarchical cluster analysis (UPGMA; cophenetic r=0.8234) classified time courses, and linear interpolation quantified onset, peak, and FWHM.
Limitations
- Stated: the authors could not perform trial-level analyses, so findings are too broad to test different accumulator models; the degree to which TR-dependent buildup reflects evidence accumulation per se is unclear and could be a byproduct of information processing.
- Stated: the precise functional relationship between accumulator and moment-of-recognition regions is unknown, including whether decisions arise from accumulators or from regions active at the moment of recognition.
- Evident from text: sample size after exclusions was modest (25 analyzed), some ROIs showed atypical or late responses possibly related to VoA rather than TR, and bottom-up stimulus-specific differences may have influenced recognition times.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
65 Own result · 26 Own interpretation · 17 Not checked yet · 13 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In medial frontal cortex, anterior insula/frontal operculum, and thalamus, activity remained near baseline until T R , suggesting a relation to the moment of recognition or the decision itself.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The time of recognition (TR) button press provides an estimate of the time of recognition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In inferior temporal, frontal, and parietal regions, a gradual buildup in activity peaking in correspondence with T R suggested that these regions participated in the accumulation of evidence supporting object identity.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The time of recognition (TR) button press provides an estimate of the time of recognition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In several occipital regions, activity increased primarily as stimulus information increased, suggesting a role in lower-level sensory processing.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The time of recognition (TR) button press provides an estimate of the time of recognition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data from the two studies demonstrate that gradual revelation produced significant spread in recognition times.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 2
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Time courses from the two ROIs were highly similar, so to increase power we merged the ROIs before extracting time courses for T R 4 -7.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Motor analysis.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the group analysis (n ϭ 12), 620 of 704 picture trials received a recognition response during steps 1-7 (T R 1-7) of revelation.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Exp2 (n ϭ 13), 985 of 1148 trials received a recognition response before VoA.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pruning the cluster tree at 1 Ϫ r ϭ 0.8 produced four clusters, each associated with a distinct pattern of time course when averaged over all ROIs in a cluster (Fig. 3b-e; Tables 1234).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Hierarchical cluster analysis.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these, 564 (91.0%) received a VoA response and were thus judged to be accurate.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these, 852 (86.5%) received a later VoA response.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 27
- It may state two separate claims as one. 18
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We identified two ROIs encompassing precentral and postcentral gyri (left peak ϭ Ϫ41, Ϫ26, ϩ58; right ϭ ϩ39, Ϫ20, ϩ57) (supplemental Figure 3, available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Motor analysis.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distribution of binned correct trials was quite similar to the distribution from Exp1 (Fig. 1c), with 157, 156, 247, and 204 in T R 4 -7, respectively.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is indeed the case for our dataset where UPGMA gives a larger cophenetic r (0.8234) than either single linkage (0.6584) or complete linkage (0.7781) approaches.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Hierarchical cluster analysis.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results did not change markedly across the four values, so we used the mean of the four values as the onset point.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Linear interpolation.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This procedure produced 73 ROIs (see Fig. 4, middle; Tables 1234), which were then used in Exp2 to examine the evolution of T R -dependent BOLD activity during nonjittered revelation.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Behavioral data indicated that most correct recognition responses occurred in steps T R 4 -7 (Fig. 1c, shaded bars).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 1: region selection.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The time of recognition (TR) button press provides an estimate of the time of recognition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“interactions of T R with region type indicated that the change in peak values over T R 4 -7 in sensory ROIs differed from accumulator (F (2.6,41.1)ϭ 9.64, p Ͻ 0.0001) and recognition (F (2.2,38.0)ϭ 17.59, p Ͻ 0.0001) ROIs.However, there was no difference in peak values over T R 4 -7 between accumulator and recognition ROIs (F (2.7,67.6)ϭ 1.46, p ϭ 0.23).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Peak times
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, ROIs in or near bilateral striatum (Ϫ11, ϩ07, ϩ05; ϩ12, ϩ06, ϩ03), near the head of the caudate nucleus, clustered broadly into the recognition group.However, their time course parameters were least similar to other ROIs in the group (supplemental Fig. 2, available at www.jneurosci.org as supplemental material).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Atypical responses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Peak times increased as a function of T R in all three region types.The 2 ϫ 4 analyses indicated that the rate of increase in the sensory ROI group was significantly less than in accumulator and recognition ROI groups.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Peak times
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same analysis on data from recognition ROIs (T R 4 -7 means: 0.10, 0.13, 0.10, 0.13) revealed neither a main effect of T R (F (1.9,24.6)ϭ 1.28, p ϭ 0.29) nor a significant linear trend (F (1,13) ϭ 0.57, p ϭ 0.46).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Slope analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 3 ϫ 4 ANOVA with three levels of region type revealed a significant main effect of T R (F (2.8,81.0)ϭ 225.62, p Ͻ 0.0001) and an interaction of T R with region type (F (5.6,81.0)ϭ 8.06, p Ͻ 0.0001)”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Peak times
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The principle result from this analysis was that response widths, which were greatest for sensory ROIs, least for recognition ROIs, and intermediate for accumulator ROIs, differed significantly across region type.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > BOLD response width
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other regions near the angular gyrus and the precuneus (Fig. 4d), activity appeared to decrease at a rate corresponding with T R .”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Hierarchical cluster analysis.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, when recognition occurred early in the trial, the leading edge of activity followed a steep slope.As recognition time increased, however, the slope became shallower, suggesting a longer diffusion process.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Accumulation
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The time at which subjects press the button (TR) corresponds to the moment of perceptual recognition.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to these analyses, onset values at different T R s did not differ in sensory ROIs (F (1.3,5.4)ϭ 1.67, p ϭ 0.26) and did not reliably follow a linear trend across T R 4 -7 (F (1,4) ϭ 1.04, p ϭ 0.37).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Onset times
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, BOLD responses in bilateral aI/fO (Fig. 4f ), dorsal ACC, meFG/pre-SMA (Fig. 4e), and thalamus were markedly more transient, with onsets and peaks that appeared to correlate positively with T R .”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Hierarchical cluster analysis.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This analysis revealed a main effect of T R (F (2.1,25.7)ϭ 6.15, p Ͻ 0.01) and a significant linear trend (F (1,12) ϭ 8.91, p Ͻ 0.05).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Slope analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 3 ϫ 4 ANOVA of onset times with the three region groups revealed a significant main effect of T R (F (2.5,73.4)ϭ 14.47, p Ͻ 0.0001) and a significant interaction of T R with region type (F (5.1,73.4)ϭ 10.91, p Ͻ 0.0001)”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Onset times
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current results do not directly differentiate among these possibilities but do temporally dissociate processes occurring at the moment of recognition and the subsequent verification of that recognition.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Recognition decision
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absence of a clear response at VoA supports this view, because the motor demand at VoA did not produce a marked change in signal in meFG/pre-SMA.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Recognition decision
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The relationship between neuronal activity and choice outcome indicates that neural processors compute behavioral decision variables by integrating afferent inputs over time (Hanes and Schall, 1996;Kim and Shadlen, 1999;Platt and Glimcher, 1999;Shadlen and Newsome, 2001;Cook and Maunsell, 2002;Roitman and Shadlen, 2002;Hanks et al., 2006;Gold and Shadlen, 2007).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hanes and Schall, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Kim and Shadlen, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Shadlen and Newsome, 2001 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to emphasize that, despite the preceding hypotheses describing eventdependent time course shapes, we did not explicitly model the shape of the hemodynamic response.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 2 Predictions.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A large body of literature on decision making (Bush et al., 2002;Carlson et al., 2006;Grinband et al., 2006;Hampton and O'Doherty, 2007;Thielscher and Pessoa, 2007) implicates anterior cingulate and frontal opercular regions in this type of processing.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 2 Predictions.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bush et al., 2002
- Not checked yetcites Carlson et al., 2006
- Not checked yetcites Grinband et al., 2006
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such models also appear to describe the evolution of neural spiking rates in macaque frontal eye fields during initiation of eye movements (Hanes and Schall, 1996), the lateral intraparietal area (Shadlen and Newsome, 2001) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) (Kim and Shadlen, 1999) during motion detection, and superior colliculus during distance judgments (Ratcliff et al., 2003).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hanes and Schall, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Shadlen and Newsome, 2001 source
- Not checked yetcites Kim and Shadlen, 1999
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Time courses from the two ROIs were highly similar, so to increase power we merged the ROIs before extracting time courses for T R 4 -7.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Motor analysis.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second response at the end of the trial, when the stimulus was fully revealed, verified the accuracy (VoA) of earlier recognition.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“To help factor out basic lateralized motor signals in group analyses, response hand was counterbalanced across participants (Thielscher and Pessoa, 2007).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Behavioral paradigm
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Thielscher and Pessoa, 2007
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Accumulator models have proven highly effective in describing human performance in recognition memory, lexical decisions, economic decisions, and sensory discriminations (Ratcliff, 1978;Busemeyer, 1985;Bundesen, 1990;Nosofsky and Palmeri, 1997;Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998;Logan and Gordon, 2001;Ratcliff et al., 2004;Gold and Shadlen, 2007).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ratcliff, 1978
- Not checked yetcites Busemeyer, 1985
- Not checked yetcites Bundesen, 1990
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To maximize power, imaging analyses focused on correct T R 4 -7 trials.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 1: region selection.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Accumulator models (Audley and Pike, 1965;Link and Heath, 1975;Ratcliff, 1978;Ratcliff and McKoon, 1982;Smith and Vickers, 1988;Usher and McClelland, 2001) describe evidence gathering as a gradual process in which evidence supporting different choices accrues over time.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Audley and Pike, 1965
- Not checked yetcites Link and Heath, 1975
- Not checked yetcites Ratcliff, 1978
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because we were primarily interested in studying decision processes, VoA served as one method to control for motor activity occurring at T R .”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, comparing T R and VoA events in Exp1 reduced the probability that ROIs would be related to motor processing.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Materials and Methods
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All F and p values of repeated measures incorporate the Greenhouse-Geisser sphericity correction to adjust the degrees of freedom.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Hierarchical cluster analysis.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regions demonstrating accumulation may compute decision variables, such that the quantity of accrued activity is associated with decision outcome.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Accumulation
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, certain visible elements (e.g., geons) provide a higher degree of object level information than straight lines (Biederman, 1987).”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Sensory processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Biederman, 1987
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the degree to which the T Rdependent buildup in activity reflects”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Accumulation
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, some objects may have been identified earlier in the trial because more critically identifiable features were unmasked earlier.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Sensory processing
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, in Ratcliff's two-choice diffusion model (Ratcliff, 1978;Ratcliff et al., 2004), evidence is accumulated in a drift parameter and decisions are generated when the value of the drift parameter surpasses a response boundary.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Accumulation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ratcliff, 1978
- Not checked yetcites Ratcliff et al., 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies of recognition memory have reported that IPS and precuneus are most active when participants respond”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Accumulation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wheeler and Buckner, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Kahn et al., 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this framework, information processing proceeds through sensory processing and evidence accumulation to decision mechanisms, and culminates in a behavior.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Additional information
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The ACC, and more recently the aI/fO, have both been associated with aspects of decision making, including choice (Hampton and O'Doherty, 2007;Thielscher and Pessoa, 2007), error detection (Dehaene et al., 1994), error likelihood (Brown and Braver, 2005)”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Recognition decision
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hampton and O'Doherty, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Dehaene et al., 1994
- Not checked yetcites Brown and Braver, 2005
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the finding presented here, the precise functional relationship between accumulators and moment-ofrecognition areas is unknown.”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Additional information
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The data values between any two time points are adequately approximated by a linear fit between those two points.
“Linear interpolation provided a straightforward procedure to quantify time course parameters across a variety of different types of response profile, while making the simple assumption that the data values between any two time points are adequately approximated by a linear fit between those two points.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The time of recognition (TR) button press provides an estimate of the time of recognition.
“This response provided an estimate of the time of recognition (T R ).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The moment of recognition is a discrete event.
“Because the moment of recognition is a discrete event, responses should occur transiently at T R (Fig. 2c).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Accumulation and recognition are inherently associated with TR.
“For example, because accumulation and recognition are inherently associated with T R , the time to peak activity for both should shift in time as a function of T R .”
The paper relies on this without support.
Evidence gathering is a prolonged process.
“Second, because evidence gathering is a prolonged process, time courses associated with accumulation should be more extended in time (i.e., greater width), albeit showing narrower widths than regions related to visual processing.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Accumulation has a role in integrating information over time.
“First, because of a hypothetical role in integrating information over time, BOLD responses associated with accumulation should increase as soon as information related to a decision becomes available (e.g., earlier onset) (Fig. 2b).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The time at which subjects press the button (TR) corresponds to the moment of perceptual recognition.
“Subjects pressed a button when they could identify the picture with a reasonable degree of confidence, and again at VoA if earlier recognition had been correct.”
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 the citing paper
“In another study (Ploran et al., 2007), as a subject viewed pictures that were revealed from a blank screen gradually in eight steps (2 s each), the areas that exhibited a gradual buildup in activity peaking in correspondence with the time of recognition were the parietal and frontal areas as well as the inferior temporal area.”
From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Ploran et al., 2007
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Hierarchical cluster analysis.
“A cluster of seven ROIs located in bilateral posterior occipital cortex, lingual gyrus, and left parahippocampal gyrus displayed an initial decrease in activity”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Experiment 2 Predictions.
“(27) R parahippocampal gyrus 19 17 Ϫ52 Ϫ4”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Motor analysis.
“More specifically, participants were divided into two groups according to response hand (right ϭ 6, left ϭ 7).An ANOVA on Exp1 T R data”
§ Evidence Accumulation and the Moment of Recognition: Dissociating Perceptual Recognition Processes Using fMRI > Subjects
“Of the remaining 25 participants, 12 were run in Exp1 and 13 in Exp2.”
Citations
Cites
Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns
Eisen, M. B., Spellman, P. T., Brown, P. O., & Botstein, D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863 · Cited by 16,184 · cited 2×
“As a means of accommodating more diverse patterns of data, UPGMA was developed (Eisen et al., 1998).”
MethodCo-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,798
The attention system of the human brain
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325 · Cited by 8,070 · cited 2×
“, 2003), attention for action (Posner et al., 1988; Posner and Petersen, 1990; Bush et al., 1998), response conflict/competition (Bush et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationConflict monitoring and cognitive control
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624 · Cited by 7,351 · cited 2×
“, 1998), response conflict/competition (Bush et al., 1998; Botvinick et al., 1999; Botvinick et al., 2001), confidence (Fleck et al.”
BackgroundNeurophysiological investigation of the basis of the fMRI signal
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., Augath, M., Trinath, T., & Oeltermann, A. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35084005 · Cited by 6,551
Brain magnetic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation.
Ogawa, S., Lee, T. M., Kay, A. R., & Tank, D. W. (1990) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.87.24.9868 · Cited by 6,483
Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding.
Biederman, I. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.2.115 · Cited by 5,621 · cited 2×
“, geons) provide a higher degree of object level information than straight lines (Biederman, 1987).”
BackgroundRatcliff, R. (1978) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.85.2.59 · Cited by 4,513 · cited 4×
“…proven highly effective in describing human performance in recognition memory, lexical decisions, economic decisions, and sensory discriminations (Ratcliff, 1978; Busemeyer, 1985; Bundesen, 1990; Nosofsky and Palmeri, 1997; Ratcliff and Rouder, 1998; Logan and Gordon, 2001; Ratcliff et al.,…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialStatistical Principles in Experimental Design
Green, P. E., Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172747 · Cited by 4,333
Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation.
Kwong, K. K., Belliveau, J. W., Chesler, D. A., Goldberg, I. E., Weisskoff, R. M., Poncelet, B. P., Kennedy, D. N., Hoppel, B. E., Cohen, M. S., & Turner, R. (1992) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.89.12.5675 · Cited by 4,212
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How do you feel — now? The anterior insula and human awareness
(Bud) Craig, A. D. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2555 · Cited by 6,657
The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after
Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525 · Cited by 3,439
Self-citationA dual-networks architecture of top-down control
Dosenbach, N. U. F., Fair, D. A., Cohen, A. L., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2008) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.001 · Cited by 1,931
“Consistent with our data, several other fMRI studies have also associated the aPFC, dACC/ msFC and aI/fO with important task control functions [24,27,33,36,40].”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationThe neural systems that mediate human perceptual decision making
Heekeren, H. R., Marrett, S., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2008) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2374 · Cited by 925
Marek, S., & Dosenbach, N. U. F. (2018) · Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.31887/dcns.2018.20.2/smarek · Cited by 836
Metadata
- Authors
- Ploran, E. J., Nelson, S. M., Velanova, K., Donaldson, D. I., Petersen, S. E., & Wheeler, M. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- University of Stirling (GB)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2007-10-31
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 44
- Pages
- 11912-11924
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC6673371
- OpenAlex
- W2088702666
- Semantic Scholar
- b2ebf13336398c29a351cdf865bce9504f95a246
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 109
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 8.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
- Keywords
- perceptual identification, evidence accumulation, decision-making, object identity, visual object recognition, inferior temporal cortex, frontal cortex, parietal cortex, medial frontal cortex, anterior insula, frontal operculum, thalamus, occipital cortex
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Analysis of Variance, Brain Mapping, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Time Factors, Visual Cortex, Cluster Analysis, Linear Models
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
