↓ Skip to main content

Human Object-Similarity Judgments Reflect and Transcend the Primate-IT Object Representation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
263 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
Human Object-Similarity Judgments Reflect and Transcend the Primate-IT Object Representation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke Mur, Mirjam Meys, Jerzy Bodurka, Rainer Goebel, Peter A. Bandettini, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte

Abstract

Primate inferior temporal (IT) cortex is thought to contain a high-level representation of objects at the interface between vision and semantics. This suggests that the perceived similarity of real-world objects might be predicted from the IT representation. Here we show that objects that elicit similar activity patterns in human IT (hIT) tend to be judged as similar by humans. The IT representation explained the human judgments better than early visual cortex, other ventral-stream regions, and a range of computational models. Human similarity judgments exhibited category clusters that reflected several categorical divisions that are prevalent in the IT representation of both human and monkey, including the animate/inanimate and the face/body division. Human judgments also reflected the within-category representation of IT. However, the judgments transcended the IT representation in that they introduced additional categorical divisions. In particular, human judgments emphasized human-related additional divisions between human and non-human animals and between man-made and natural objects. hIT was more similar to monkey IT than to human judgments. One interpretation is that IT has evolved visual-feature detectors that distinguish between animates and inanimates and between faces and bodies because these divisions are fundamental to survival and reproduction for all primate species, and that other brain systems serve to more flexibly introduce species-dependent and evolutionarily more recent divisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 263 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
Germany 3 1%
Japan 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 247 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 24%
Researcher 52 20%
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 4%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 38 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 72 27%
Neuroscience 66 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 8%
Computer Science 14 5%
Engineering 12 5%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 55 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 May 2023.
All research outputs
#14,532,311
of 23,708,357 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,778
of 31,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,479
of 285,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#582
of 968 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,708,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 285,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 968 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.