1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Perceptual processing in the ventral visual stream requires area TE but not rhinal cortex

  1. Mark A G Eldridge  Is a corresponding author
  2. Narihisa Matsumoto
  3. John H Wittig
  4. Evan C Masseau
  5. Richard C Saunders
  6. Barry J Richmond  Is a corresponding author
  1. National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan
  3. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 3
  • Views 825
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e36310 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36310

Abstract

There is on-going debate over whether area TE, or the anatomically adjacent rhinal cortex, is the final stage of visual object processing. Both regions have been implicated in visual perception, but their involvement in non-perceptual functions, such as short-term memory, hinders clear-cut interpretation. Here using a two-interval forced choice task without a short-term memory demand, we find that after bilateral removal of area TE, monkeys trained to categorize images based on perceptual similarity (morphs between dogs and cats), are, on the initial viewing, badly impaired when given a new set of images. They improve markedly with a small amount of practice but nonetheless remain moderately impaired indefinitely. The monkeys with bilateral removal of rhinal cortex are, under all conditions, indistinguishable from unoperated controls. We conclude that the final stage of the integration of visual perceptual information into object percepts in the ventral visual stream occurs in area TE.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mark A G Eldridge

    Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    mark.a.g.eldridge@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4292-6832
  2. Narihisa Matsumoto

    Human Informatics Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tsukuba, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. John H Wittig

    Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0465-1022
  4. Evan C Masseau

    Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Richard C Saunders

    Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Barry J Richmond

    Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    barry.richmond@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8234-1540

Funding

National Institute of Mental Health (1ZIAMH002032-41)

  • Mark A G Eldridge
  • Narihisa Matsumoto
  • John H Wittig
  • Evan C Masseau
  • Richard C Saunders
  • Barry J Richmond

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experimental procedures conformed to the Institute of Medicine Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and were performed under an Animal Study Protocol approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee of the National Institute of Mental Health, covered by project number: MH002032.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Lila Davachi, New York University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: March 1, 2018
  2. Accepted: October 11, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 12, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 30, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 825
    Page views
  • 119
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)