Sign in
NeuroscienceJournal of Neurophysiology
Peer-reviewed journal article

The integration of visual and target signals in V4 and IT during visual object search

Noam RothiD, Nicole C. RustiD

Abstract

Searching for a specific visual object requires our brain to compare the items in view with a remembered representation of the sought target to determine whether a target match is present. This comparison is thought to be implemented, in part, via the combination of top-down modulations reflecting target identity with feed-forward visual representations. However, it remains unclear whether top-down signals are integrated at a single locus within the ventral visual pathway (e.g. V4) or at multiple stages (e.g. both V4 and inferotemporal cortex, IT). To investigate, we recorded neural responses in V4 and IT as rhesus monkeys performed a task that required them to identify when a target object appeared across variation in position, size and background context. We found non-visual, task-specific signals in both V4 and IT. To evaluate whether V4 was the only locus for the integration of top-down signals, we evaluated several feed-forward accounts of processing from V4 to IT, including a model in which IT preferentially sampled from the best V4 units and a model that allowed for nonlinear IT computation. IT task-specific modulation was not accounted for by any of these feed-forward descriptions, suggesting that during object search, top-down signals are integrated directly within IT.\n\nNEW & NOTEWORTHYTo find specific objects, the brain must integrate top-down, target-specific signals with visual information about objects in view. However, the exact route of this integration in the ventral visual pathway is unclear. In the first study to systematically compare V4 and IT during an invariant object search task, we demonstrate that top-down signals found in IT cannot be described as being inherited from V4, but rather must be integrated directly within IT itself.

PDFDOI

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers
Citations
5
FWCI
0.29
Field percentile
top 42%

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISRoth '18Abdelhack '19Ghosh '21Lieber '24Klink '23Fan '20
74% semantic matchNeuroscience
Noam Roth, Nicole C. Rust·PLoS ONE·Jul 19, 2018· 8 citations