Cargando…

Inconsistencies between human and macaque lesion data can be resolved with a stimulus-computable model of the ventral visual stream

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 dam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonnen, Tyler, Eldridge, Mark AG
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10310321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37278517
http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84357
Descripción
Sumario: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.