Cited by 961Visual perception and processing mechanismsFace Recognition and PerceptionVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

Deep neural networks reveal a gradient in the complexity of neural representations across the ventral stream

Open access
Guclu, U., van Gerven, M. A. J.·2015·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Converging evidence suggests that the primate ventral visual pathway encodes increasingly complex stimulus features in downstream areas. We quantitatively show that there indeed exists an explicit gradient for feature complexity in the ventral pathway of the human brain. This was achieved by mapping thousands of stimulus features of increasing complexity across the cortical sheet using a deep neural network. Our approach also revealed a fine-grained functional specialization of downstream areas of the ventral stream. Furthermore, it allowed decoding of representations from human brain activity at an unsurpassed degree of accuracy, confirming the quality of the developed approach. Stimulus features that successfully explained neural responses indicate that population receptive fields were explicitly tuned for object categorization. This provides strong support for the hypothesis that object categorization is a guiding principle in the functional organization of the primate ventral stream.

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.5023-14.2015

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • Numerous studies using neuroconnectionism have identified shared representational structure across brains and ANN models, as well as factors influencing this alignment.

    “Using this approach, known as neuroconnectionism, numerous studies have identified shared representational structure across brains and ANN models, as well as factors influencing this alignment [5–11]”
  • Deep-learning algorithms share organizational overlap with the ventral visual stream of the brain.

    “and share organizational overlap with the ventral visual stream of the brain [144-146].”

    From How Do Expectations Shape Perception? (2018) · cites this paper as [145]

  • The finding that the middle LSTM layer learns highest-level representations contrasts with supervised networks where high-level cortical areas were best modeled by higher layers.

    “This finding is in stark contrast to experiments that used supervised networks (7; 5; 11).”
  • Different layers from supervised networks predicted different brain areas.

    “However, previous fMRI studies have found that different layers from supervised networks predicted different brain areas (2; 7; 5; 11), suggesting that each layer should be tested separately.”
  • Supervised network experiments found that high-level cortical areas were best modeled by higher layers of the network.

    “Those experiments found that high-level cortical areas were best modeled by higher layers of the network.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers E-J (2015) Model-based cognitive neurosci- ence. New York: Springer.
  2. Grill-Spector K, Kushnir T, Hendler T, Edelman S, Itzchak Y, Malach R (1998) A sequence of object-processing stages revealed by fMRI in the human occipital lobe. Hum Brain Mapp 6:316 -328. CrossRef Medline · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guclu, U., & van Gerven, M. A. J.
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2015-07-08
Volume
35
Issue
27
Pages
10005-10014
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1715013381
Cited by
961
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 100 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
41.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
ventral stream, neural representations, object classification, population receptive field, functional specialization, primate visual cortex
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Models, Neurological, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Visual Pathways

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