↓ Skip to main content

No Evidence for Automatic Remapping of Stimulus Features or Location Found with fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
No Evidence for Automatic Remapping of Stimulus Features or Location Found with fMRI
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00053
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark D. Lescroart, Nancy Kanwisher, Julie D. Golomb

Abstract

The input to our visual system shifts every time we move our eyes. To maintain a stable percept of the world, visual representations must be updated with each saccade. Near the time of a saccade, neurons in several visual areas become sensitive to the regions of visual space that their receptive fields occupy after the saccade. This process, known as remapping, transfers information from one set of neurons to another, and may provide a mechanism for visual stability. However, it is not clear whether remapping transfers information about stimulus features in addition to information about stimulus location. To investigate this issue, we recorded blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) responses while human subjects viewed images of faces and houses (two visual categories with many feature differences). Immediately after some image presentations, subjects made a saccade that moved the previously stimulated location to the opposite side of the visual field. We then used a combination of univariate analyses and multivariate pattern analyses to test whether information about stimulus location and stimulus features were remapped to the ipsilateral hemisphere after the saccades. We found no reliable indication of stimulus feature remapping in any region. However, we also found no reliable indication of stimulus location remapping, despite the fact that our paradigm was highly similar to previous fMRI studies of remapping. The absence of location remapping in our study precludes strong conclusions regarding feature remapping. However, these results also suggest that measurement of location remapping with fMRI depends strongly on the details of the experimental paradigm used. We highlight differences in our approach from the original fMRI studies of remapping, discuss potential reasons for the failure to generalize prior location remapping results, and suggest directions for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Student > Master 7 13%
Professor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 35%
Neuroscience 14 27%
Linguistics 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 6 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,918,729
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#555
of 1,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,117
of 352,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#11
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.