1979
DOI: 10.1016/0006-8993(79)90821-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Role of inferior temporal cortex in interhemispheric transfer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
2

Year Published

1981
1981
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
11
2
Order By: Relevance
“…What is the function of such large receptive fields? Because IT neurons respond to a stimulus thoughout a receptive field much larger than the stimulus, it has been suggested that IT neurons mediate the perceptual equivalence of visual objects across retinal translation (Gross and Mishkin, 1977;Seacord et al, 1979). In addition, in the present study we found neurons that responded to stimuli regardless of changes in stimulus size within the receptive field; this has been confirmed for a much larger sample of IT neurons in a separate study (Schwartz et al, 1983).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…What is the function of such large receptive fields? Because IT neurons respond to a stimulus thoughout a receptive field much larger than the stimulus, it has been suggested that IT neurons mediate the perceptual equivalence of visual objects across retinal translation (Gross and Mishkin, 1977;Seacord et al, 1979). In addition, in the present study we found neurons that responded to stimuli regardless of changes in stimulus size within the receptive field; this has been confirmed for a much larger sample of IT neurons in a separate study (Schwartz et al, 1983).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…The retinulposition of a stimulus appears to be irrelevant to IT representations (Gross & Mishkin, 1977;Seacord, Gross, & Mishkin, 1979). Monkeys with bilateral, but not unilateral, IT lesions show impaired interhemispheric transfer of a learned visual discrimination (i.e., impaired generalization across the two hemifields).…”
Section: Positionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Perhaps the most widely accepted of these is that IT provides perceptual constang, that is, the ability to see that two inputs with different retinal positions, orientations, and sizes arise from the same physical object (Desimone et al, 1985;Gross, 1978;Gross & Mishkin, 1977;Holmes & Gross, 1984a,b;Iwai, 1985;Laursen, 1982;Seacord et al, 1979). On this view, the discrimination deficit following IT lesions is due to the fact that successive presentations of the target stimulus have slightly different retinal projections, and the monkey lacks the mechanism that normally indicates that these stimuli represent the same object.…”
Section: Theories Of Inferotemporal Function Perceptual Constancymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lesion studies of the effects of transection of the corpus callosum and anterior commissure in the monkey have shown that the ability to activate TE neurons from the ipsilateral hemifield depends on these crossing fibers, suggesting that spatial generalization across hemifields requires intact commissural connections (Gross, Bender, & Mishkin, 1977;Rocha-Miranda, Bender, Gross, & Mishkin, 1975). This is supported by behavioral experiments in split-brain monkeys (Seacord, Gross, & Mishkin, 1979) and cats (Berlucchi, Buchtel, Marzi, Mascetti, & Simoni, 1978), which demonstrated a lack of spatial generalization of skilled visual discriminations from one hemifield to the other.…”
mentioning
confidence: 91%