4.4 Article

Representation of an abstract perceptual decision in macaque superior colliculus

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 91, 期 5, 页码 2281-2296

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00872.2003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY-05603] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-17047] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We recorded from neurons in the intermediate and deep layers of the superior colliculus (SC) while monkeys performed a novel direction discrimination task. In contrast to the task we used previously, the new version required the monkey to dissociate perceptual judgments from preparation to execute specific operant saccades. The monkey discriminated between 2 opposed directions of motion in a random-dot motion stimulus and was required to maintain the decision in memory throughout a delay period before the target of the required operant saccade was revealed. We hypothesized that perceptual decisions made in this paradigm would be represented in an abstract or categorical form within the brain, probably in the frontal cortex, and that decision-related neural activity would be eliminated from spatially organized preoculomotor structures such as the SC. To our surprise, however, a small population of neurons in the intermediate and deep layers of the SC fired in a choice-specific manner early in the trial well before the monkey could plan the operant saccade. Furthermore, the representation of the decision during the delay period appeared to be spatial: the active region in the SC map corresponded to the region of space toward which the perceptually discriminated stimulus motion flowed. Electrical microstimulation experiments suggested that these decision-related SC signals were not merely related to covert saccade planning. We conclude that monkeys may employ, in part, a spatially referenced mnemonic strategy for representing perceptual decisions, even when an abstract, categorical representation might appear more likely a priori.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据