Inconsistencies between human and macaque lesion data can be resolved with a stimulus-computable model of the ventral visual stream.
Inconsistencies between human and macaque lesion data can be resolved with a stimulus-computable model of the ventral visual stream.
复制标题
DOI：
10.7554/elife.84357
复制
发表时间：
2023-06-06
期刊：
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Eldridge MAG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bonnen T;Eldridge MAG
几十年的神经科学研究一直试图理解内侧颞叶（MTL）参与感知。文献中明显的不一致导致了对现有证据的相互矛盾的解释；至关重要的是，自然发生MTL损伤的人类参与者的发现似乎与手术损伤的猴子的数据不一致。在这里，我们利用了灵长类动物腹侧视觉流（VVS）的“刺激可计算”代理，这使我们能够正式评估刺激集、实验和物种之间的感知需求。在此模型框架下，我们分析了一系列实验，这些实验是针对手术导致双侧外周血皮质（PRC）损伤的猴子进行的，PRC是一种与视觉物体感知有关的MTL结构。在实验中，prc损伤的受试者在知觉任务上没有表现出损伤；这最初导致我们（Eldridge等人，2018）得出结论，中华人民共和国不参与感知。在这里，我们发现一个“类似VVS”的模型预测了prc完好无损和受损的选择行为，这表明VVS的线性读数应该足以在这些任务中发挥作用。将这些计算结果与人体实验结果一起进行评估，我们认为（Eldridge等人，2018）的结果不能单独用作反对PRC参与感知的证据。这些数据表明，人类和非人类灵长类动物的实验结果是一致的。因此，物种之间的差异实际上是由于依赖于对感知处理的非正式描述。
Decades of neuroscientific research has sought to understand medial temporal lobe (MTL) involvement in perception. Apparent inconsistencies in the literature have led to competing interpretations of the available evidence; critically, findings from human participants with naturally occurring MTL damage appear to be inconsistent with data from monkeys with surgical lesions. Here, we leverage a ‘stimulus-computable’ proxy for the primate ventral visual stream (VVS), which enables us to formally evaluate perceptual demands across stimulus sets, experiments, and species. With this modeling framework, we analyze a series of experiments administered to monkeys with surgical, bilateral damage to perirhinal cortex (PRC), an MTL structure implicated in visual object perception. Across experiments, PRC-lesioned subjects showed no impairment on perceptual tasks; this originally led us(Eldridge et al., 2018) to conclude that PRC is not involved in perception. Here, we find that a ‘VVS-like’ model predicts both PRC-intact and -lesioned choice behaviors, suggesting that a linear readout of the VVS should be sufficient for performance on these tasks. Evaluating these computational results alongside findings from human experiments, we suggest that results from (Eldridge et al., 2018) alone cannot be used as evidence against PRC involvement in perception. These data indicate that experimental findings from human and non-human primates are consistent. As such, what appeared to be discrepancies between species was in fact due to reliance on informal accounts of perceptual processing.