Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 88 references

Contextual Role Modulates Object Representational Geometry in the Human Brain

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-30 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The same objects recruit different brain networks and reorganize their representational geometry when they shift from passive scene elements to targets of goal-directed actions.

desk verdict The paper reports a double dissociation in object representational geometry during movie viewing—affordances for action targets in parietal areas, semantics for passive objects in occipito-temporal—but the abstract leaves open whether object role was cleanly separated from visual and attentional confounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.23111 v4 pith:ES5ZQE7M submitted 2026-05-22 q-bio.NC

Julien Dirani , Shankar Chawla , Leila Wehbe , Bradford Z. Mahon This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords fMRIobjectrepresentationrepresentationalgeometrycontextualrolenaturalisticstimuliactionaffordancesemanticdimensionsvisualinvariance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Using fMRI while people watched movies, the study tracked how identical objects are encoded when they play passive roles versus when they become targets of actions. Action targets activated a parietal network and their geometry aligned with action affordance and hand posture dimensions. Passive objects instead drove occipito-temporal visual areas whose geometry aligned with semantic dimensions. Visual representational structure itself stayed unchanged across these role shifts, indicating that flexibility and invariance operate at distinct levels of the system.

What carries the argument

Context-selective networks in which representational geometry shows a double dissociation according to whether objects are action targets or passive elements.

What would settle it

Finding identical representational geometries for the same objects regardless of role inside the parietal and occipito-temporal networks, or finding context-dependent changes inside early visual cortex.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Action targets engaged a parietal action network centered in the supramarginal and postcentral gyri, while passive objects recruited a distributed occipito-temporal network. Within context-selective networks, target objects were organized by action affordance and hand posture affordance dimensions, while passive objects aligned with semantic dimensions. Visual representational structure was invariant to context, and outside the context-selective networks representational content retained invariance.

Load-bearing premise

The movie clips cleanly separate objects into passive versus action-target roles without low-level visual features, attention, or narrative factors driving the observed differences in brain signals and geometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Targets of goal-directed actions engage parietal regions involved in action planning.
  • Passive scene elements are processed through occipito-temporal pathways tied to visual recognition.
  • Semantic dimensions structure the geometry of passive objects while affordance dimensions structure the geometry of targets.
  • Invariance of visual structure persists even as higher-level geometry remaps with context.
  • Representational flexibility and invariance coexist at different stages of the same object-processing hierarchy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Moment-to-moment role changes could allow the same visual input to support different behaviors without rewriting basic perceptual maps.
  • The pattern raises the possibility that goal or task context can selectively weight affordance versus semantic dimensions in real time.
  • Similar role-dependent remapping might appear in other modalities or in disorders that affect contextual integration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that fMRI during naturalistic movie viewing reveals context-dependent remapping of object representations: action targets engage a parietal network (supramarginal/postcentral gyri) with representational geometry organized by action affordance and hand posture dimensions, while passive objects recruit occipito-temporal networks aligned with semantic dimensions. Visual structure remains invariant to context, with flexibility and invariance operating at different levels of the representational system.

Significance. If the central dissociation holds after controlling for confounds, the work would demonstrate dynamic, role-based modulation of object geometry in context-selective networks during naturalistic viewing, extending prior findings on affordance and semantic coding to moment-to-moment contextual shifts and highlighting separable invariance/flexibility mechanisms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Methods] The double dissociation in representational geometry (affordance dimensions for targets vs. semantic for passive objects) within context-selective networks is load-bearing on the assumption that object role (passive scene element vs. goal-directed action target) can be assigned independently of low-level visual features, motion energy, saliency, attention, or narrative context. In movie stimuli, action targets are definitionally more likely to differ on these dimensions, which could drive the reported network differences (parietal for targets, occipito-temporal for passive) and geometry effects rather than contextual role per se. The manuscript must provide explicit labeling criteria, inter-rater reliability metrics, and confound regression details (e.g., motion energy, visual statistics) to support the claim.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states the findings but supplies no details on analysis methods, statistical tests, sample size, motion correction, or controls for visual/attentional confounds, rendering it impossible to evaluate whether the data support the claims of context-dependent remapping and invariance outside the networks.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the precise definition and operationalization of 'context-selective networks' and how they were identified (e.g., via localizer or data-driven parcellation).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help strengthen the methodological transparency of the work. We address each point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] The double dissociation in representational geometry (affordance dimensions for targets vs. semantic for passive objects) within context-selective networks is load-bearing on the assumption that object role (passive scene element vs. goal-directed action target) can be assigned independently of low-level visual features, motion energy, saliency, attention, or narrative context. In movie stimuli, action targets are definitionally more likely to differ on these dimensions, which could drive the reported network differences (parietal for targets, occipito-temporal for passive) and geometry effects rather than contextual role per se. The manuscript must provide explicit labeling criteria, inter-rater reliability metrics, and confound regression details (e.g., motion energy, visual statistics) to support the claim.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of labeling independence from low-level features is required to support the double dissociation. The revised manuscript adds a dedicated Methods subsection specifying the annotation criteria (objects labeled as action targets only when they are the direct recipient of a goal-directed manual action by an actor; passive otherwise), reports inter-rater reliability across two annotators, and details the confound regression pipeline (motion energy, saliency, and low-level visual statistics regressed from BOLD time series prior to RSA). Control analyses demonstrating persistence of the network and geometry effects after regression are now included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states the findings but supplies no details on analysis methods, statistical tests, sample size, motion correction, or controls for visual/attentional confounds, rendering it impossible to evaluate whether the data support the claims of context-dependent remapping and invariance outside the networks.

    Authors: Abstracts are subject to strict length limits and conventionally emphasize results over methods. We have nevertheless revised the abstract to include the sample size, the core RSA approach with permutation testing, and reference to confound controls. Full procedural details (motion correction, all statistical tests, and confound regressions) remain in the Methods section as is conventional. If the editor prefers a longer abstract, we can accommodate that request. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: purely empirical neuroimaging study

full rationale

The paper reports an fMRI experiment using naturalistic movie stimuli to compare representational geometry for objects in different contextual roles (passive vs. action targets). No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, predictions from models, or self-citation chains appear in the abstract or described methods. Claims rest on statistical contrasts of BOLD signals and RSA geometry metrics, which are externally falsifiable via replication with new stimuli or participants. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Empirical fMRI study with no explicit mathematical model, free parameters, or new axioms; relies on standard assumptions of BOLD signal interpretation and representational similarity analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Contextual Role Modulates Object Representational Geometry in the Human Brain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ES5ZQE7M

@misc{pith2026260523111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Contextual Role Modulates Object Representational Geometry in the Human Brain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ES5ZQE7M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.23111}
}
read the original abstract

The human brain represents objects in a way that is both invariant across instances and flexible enough to support different contexts and tasks. Yet it remains unknown how object representations are dynamically remapped as the same object shifts across contextual roles. Using fMRI during naturalistic movie viewing we investigated how the same objects are represented when they are passive scene elements versus targets of goal-directed actions. Action targets engaged a parietal action network centered in the supramarginal and postcentral gyri, while passive objects recruited a distributed occipito-temporal network involved in visual object recognition. Within context-selective networks, representational geometry showed a double dissociation: target objects were organized by action affordance and hand posture affordance dimensions, while passive objects aligned with semantic dimensions. Visual representational structure was invariant to context. Outside these networks, representational content retained invariance, indicating that flexibility and invariance operate at different levels of the same representational system. These findings demonstrate neural remapping of object representations depending on moment-to-moment changes in contextual roles during a naturalistic scene.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Pylkkänen, L

    Dirani, J. & Pylkkänen, L. MEG evidence that modality -independent conceptual representations contain semantic and visual features. J. Neurosci. 44, (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ralph, M. A. L., Jefferies, E., Patterson, K. & Rogers, T. T. The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 42–55 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    N., Bankson, B

    Hebart, M. N., Bankson, B. B., Harel, A., Baker, C. I. & Cichy, R. M. The representational dynamics of task and object processing in humans. elife 7, e32816 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    The Representation of Object Concepts in the Brain

    Martin, A. The Representation of Object Concepts in the Brain. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 58, 25–45 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Haxby, J. V. et al. A common, high-dimensional model of the representational space in human ventral temporal cortex. Neuron 72, 404–416 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Hebart, M. N. et al. THINGS: A database of 1,854 object concepts and more than 26,000 naturalistic object images. PloS One 14, e0223792 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Kriegeskorte, N. et al. Matching categorical object representations in inferior temporal cortex of man and monkey. Neuron 60, 1126–1141 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    & Kanwisher, N

    Grill-Spector, K., Kourtzi, Z. & Kanwisher, N. The lateral occipital complex and its role in object recognition. Vision Res. 41, 1409–1422 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    & Weiner, K

    Grill-Spector, K. & Weiner, K. S. The functional architecture of the ventral temporal cortex and its role in categorization. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 15, 536–548 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G. & Macko, K. A. Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends Neurosci. 6, 414–417 (1983)

    1983

  3. [11]

    Merigan, W. H. & Maunsell, J. How parallel are the primate visual pathways? Annu. Rev. Neurosci. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-32418-001 (1993)

    1993

  4. [12]

    Goodale, M. A. & Milner, A. D. Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends Neurosci. 15, 20–25 (1992). 26

    1992

  5. [13]

    De Haan, E. H. & Cowey, A. On the usefulness of ‘what’and ‘where’pathways in vision. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 460–466 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    W., Heywood, C

    Cavina-Pratesi, C., Kentridge, R. W., Heywood, C. A. & Milner, A. D. Separate processing of texture and form in the ventral stream: evidence from FMRI and visual agnosia. Cereb. Cortex 20, 433–446 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Simmons, W. K. et al. A common neural substrate for perceiving and knowing about color. Neuropsychologia 45, 2802–2810 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    P., Cant, J

    Gallivan, J. P., Cant, J. S., Goodale, M. A. & Flanagan, J. R. Representation of object weight in human ventral visual cortex. Curr. Biol. 24, 1866–1873 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    J., Saleem, K

    Kravitz, D. J., Saleem, K. S., Baker, C. I. & Mishkin, M. A new neural framework for visuospatial processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 12, 217–230 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    A., Spiers, H

    Burgess, N., Maguire, E. A., Spiers, H. J. & O’Keefe, J. A temporoparietal and prefrontal network for retrieving the spatial context of lifelike events. Neuroimage 14, 439–453 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    & Matelli, M

    Rizzolatti, G. & Matelli, M. Two different streams form the dorsal visual system: anatomy and functions. Exp. Brain Res. 153, 146–157 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    & Buxbaum, L

    Binkofski, F. & Buxbaum, L. J. Two action systems in the human brain. Brain Lang. 127, 222– 229 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    A Tale of Two Visual Systems: Invariant and Adaptive Visual Information Representations in the Primate Brain

    Xu, Y. A Tale of Two Visual Systems: Invariant and Adaptive Visual Information Representations in the Primate Brain. Annu. Rev. Vis. Sci. 4, 311–336 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    J., Saleem, K

    Kravitz, D. J., Saleem, K. S., Baker, C. I., Ungerleider, L. G. & Mishkin, M. The ventral visual pathway: an expanded neural framework for the processing of object quality. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17, 26–49 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    The role of mirror neurons in speech perception and action word semantics

    Hickok, G. The role of mirror neurons in speech perception and action word semantics. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25, 749–776 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Culham, J. C. & Valyear, K. F. Human parietal cortex in action. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16, 205– 212 (2006). 27

    2006

  17. [25]

    Caspers, S. et al. The human inferior parietal cortex: cytoarchitectonic parcellation and interindividual variability. Neuroimage 33, 430–448 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Caspers, S. et al. The human inferior parietal lobule in stereotaxic space. Brain Struct. Funct. 212, 481–495 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    J., Kyle, K

    Buxbaum, L. J., Kyle, K. M. & Menon, R. On beyond mirror neurons: Internal representations subserving imitation and recognition of skilled object-related actions in humans. Cogn. Brain Res. 25, 226–239 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    J., Johnson -Frey, S

    Buxbaum, L. J., Johnson -Frey, S. H. & Bartlett -Williams, M. Deficient internal models for planning hand–object interactions in apraxia. Neuropsychologia 43, 917–929 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    & Craighero, L

    Rizzolatti, G. & Craighero, L. THE MIRROR -NEURON SYSTEM. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 27, 169–192 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    & Damasio, A

    Tranel, D., Kemmerer, D., Adolphs, R., Damasio, H. & Damasio, A. R. NEURAL CORRELATES OF CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE FOR ACTIONS. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 20, 409–432 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Mahon, B. Z. & Almeida, J. Reciprocal interactions among parietal and occipito -temporal representations support everyday object -directed actions. Neuropsychologia 198, 108841 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    R., Desai, R

    Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W. & Conant, L. L. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cereb. Cortex 19, 2767–2796 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    & Isel, F

    Gan, G., Büchel, C. & Isel, F. Effect of language task demands on the neural response during lexical access: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Brain Behav. 3, 402 –416 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Xu, Y. et al. Doctor, teacher, and stethoscope: neural representation of different types of semantic relations. J. Neurosci. 38, 3303–3317 (2018). 28

    2018

  27. [35]

    Wang, X. et al. Representational similarity analysis reveals task -dependent semantic influence of the visual word form area. Sci. Rep. 8, 3047 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Perceptual and semantic sources of category -specific effects: Event -related potentials during picture and word categorization

    Kiefer, M. Perceptual and semantic sources of category -specific effects: Event -related potentials during picture and word categorization. Mem. Cognit. 29, 100–116 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Harel, A., Kravitz, D. J. & Baker, C. I. Task context impacts visual object processing differentially across the cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    & Ullman, S

    Bar, M. & Ullman, S. Spatial Context in Recognition. Perception 25, 343–352 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    & Bentin, S

    Harel, A. & Bentin, S. Stimulus type, level of categorization, and spatial-frequencies utilization: implications for perceptual categorization hierarchies. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 35, 1264 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Schyns, P. G. & Oliva, A. Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: When categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations. Cognition 69, 243–265 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Beck, D. M. & Kastner, S. Stimulus context modulates competition in human extrastriate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1110–1116 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    Chen, A. J.-W. et al. Goal-directed attention alters the tuning of object-based representations in extrastriate cortex. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 6, 187 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    W., McEvoy, K., Knight, R

    Gazzaley, A., Cooney, J. W., McEvoy, K., Knight, R. T. & D’esposito, M. Top -down enhancement and suppression of the magnitude and speed of neural activity. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 17, 507–517 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    M., Downing, P

    O’Craven, K. M., Downing, P. E. & Kanwisher, N. fMRI evidence for objects as the units of attentional selection. Nature 401, 584–587 (1999)

    1999

  37. [45]

    Murray, S. O. & Wojciulik, E. Attention increases neural selectivity in the human lateral occipital complex. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 70–74 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    & Duncan, J

    Desimone, R. & Duncan, J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 193–222 (1995). 29

    1995

  39. [47]

    K., Freedman, D

    Miller, E. K., Freedman, D. J. & Wallis, J. D. The prefrontal cortex: categories, concepts and cognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 357, 1123–1136 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Çukur, T., Nishimoto, S., Huth, A. G. & Gallant, J. L. Attention during natural vision warps semantic representation across the human brain. Nat. Neurosci. 16, 763–770 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    & Mitchell, T

    Toneva, M., Stretcu, O., Póczos, B., Wehbe, L. & Mitchell, T. M. Modeling task effects on meaning representation in the brain via zero -shot meg prediction. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 5284–5295 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    D., Eickenberg, M., Nunez-Elizalde, A

    La Tour, T. D., Eickenberg, M., Nunez-Elizalde, A. O. & Gallant, J. L. Feature-space selection with banded ridge regression. NeuroImage 264, 119728 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Smith, F. W. & Goodale, M. A. Decoding visual object categories in early somatosensory cortex. Cereb. Cortex 25, 1020–1031 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    Caspers, S., Zilles, K., Laird, A. R. & Eickhoff, S. B. ALE meta-analysis of action observation and imitation in the human brain. Neuroimage 50, 1148–1167 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    R., Walbrin, J., Akwayena, E., Almeida, J

    Caglar, L. R., Walbrin, J., Akwayena, E., Almeida, J. & Mahon, B. Z. Object -directed action representations are componentially built in parietal cortex. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 122, e2421032122 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    Cant, J. S. & Goodale, M. A. Attention to form or surface properties modulates different regions of human occipitotemporal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 17, 713–731 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Peelen, M. V. & Downing, P. E. Selectivity for the Human Body in the Fusiform Gyrus. J. Neurophysiol. 93, 603–608 (2005)

    2005

  48. [56]

    F., Baker, C

    Schwarzlose, R. F., Baker, C. I. & Kanwisher, N. Separate face and body selectivity on the fusiform gyrus. J. Neurosci. 25, 11055–11059 (2005)

    2005

  49. [57]

    Weiner, K. S. & Grill-Spector, K. Not one extrastriate body area: using anatomical landmarks, hMT+, and visual field maps to parcellate limb -selective activations in human lateral occipitotemporal cortex. Neuroimage 56, 2183–2199 (2011). 30

    2011

  50. [58]

    Contribution of the posterior parietal cortex in reaching, grasping, and using objects and tools

    Vingerhoets, G. Contribution of the posterior parietal cortex in reaching, grasping, and using objects and tools. Front. Psychol. 5, 151 (2014)

    2014

  51. [59]

    Garcea, F. E. et al. Domain-specific diaschisis: lesions to parietal action areas modulate neural responses to tools in the ventral stream. Cereb. Cortex 29, 3168–3181 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    Chao, L. L. & Martin, A. Representation of manipulable man -made objects in the dorsal stream. Neuroimage 12, 478–484 (2000)

    2000

  53. [61]

    Mahon, B. Z. et al. Action-related properties shape object representations in the ventral stream. Neuron 55, 507–520 (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    & Sun, J

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S. & Sun, J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. in 770– 778 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Xiao, S. et al. C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddings. in Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 641–649 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2024). doi:10.1145/36267...

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    & Pylkkänen, L

    Dirani, J. & Pylkkänen, L. The time course of cross -modal representations of conceptual categories. Neuroimage 277, 120254 (2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Gibson, J. J. The theory of affordances. Hilldale USA 1, 67–82 (1977)

    1977

  58. [66]

    & Thompson-Schill, S

    Yee, E. & Thompson-Schill, S. L. Putting concepts into context. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1015– 1027 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Mahon, B. Z. What is embodied about cognition? Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 30, 420–429 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    Nastase, S. A. et al. Attention selectively reshapes the geometry of distributed semantic representation. Cereb. Cortex 27, 4277–4291 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    & Wojciulik, E

    Kanwisher, N. & Wojciulik, E. Visual attention: Insights from brain imaging. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 1, 91–100 (2000)

    2000

  62. [70]

    V., Hayden, B

    David, S. V., Hayden, B. Y., Mazer, J. A. & Gallant, J. L. Attention to Stimulus Features Shifts Spectral Tuning of V4 Neurons during Natural Vision. Neuron 59, 509–521 (2008). 31

    2008

  63. [71]

    Mazer, J. A. & Gallant, J. L. Goal -Related Activity in V4 during Free Viewing Visual Search: Evidence for a Ventral Stream Visual Salience Map. Neuron 40, 1241–1250 (2003)

    2003

  64. [72]

    Stuss, D. T. & Benson, D. F. The Frontal Lobes and Control of Cognition and Memory. in The Frontal Lobes Revisited (Psychology Press, 1987)

    1987

  65. [73]

    & Nee, D

    Badre, D. & Nee, D. E. Frontal cortex and the hierarchical control of behavior. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 170–188 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Damen, D. et al. Rescaling Egocentric Vision: Collection, Pipeline and Challenges for EPIC - KITCHENS-100. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 130, 33–55 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Damen, D. et al. Scaling Egocentric Vision: The EPIC -KITCHENS Dataset. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.02748 (2018)

    2018 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    ai Corporation

    CVAT. ai Corporation. Computer Vision Annotation Tool (CVAT). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.12771595 (2024)

    2024 doi

  69. [77]

    Zhang, F. et al. MediaPipe Hands: On -device Real -time Hand Tracking. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.10214 (2020)

    2006 doi

  70. [78]

    O., Deniz, F., Dupré la Tour, T., Visconti di Oleggio Castello, M

    Nunez-Elizalde, A. O., Deniz, F., Dupré la Tour, T., Visconti di Oleggio Castello, M. & Gallant, J. L. Pymoten: scientific Python package for computing motion energy features from video. Zenodo (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Cox, R. W. AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. Comput. Biomed. Res. 29, 162–173 (1996)

    1996

  72. [80]

    Cox, R. W. & Hyde, J. S. Software tools for analysis and visualization of fMRI data. NMR Biomed. 10, 171–178 (1997)

    1997

  73. [81]

    FreeSurfer

    Fischl, B. FreeSurfer. Neuroimage 62, 774–781 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    S., Huth, A

    Gao, J. S., Huth, A. G., Lescroart, M. D. & Gallant, J. L. Pycortex: an interactive surface visualizer for fMRI. Front. Neuroinformatics 9, 23 (2015)

    2015

  75. [83]

    G., De Heer, W

    Huth, A. G., De Heer, W. A., Griffiths, T. L., Theunissen, F. E. & Gallant, J. L. Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex. Nature 532, 453–458 (2016). 32

    2016

  76. [84]

    Lancaster, J. L. et al. Automated labeling of the human brain: A preliminary report on the development and evaluation of a forward -transform method. Hum. Brain Mapp. 5, 238–242 (1997)

    1997

  77. [85]

    Lancaster, J. L. et al. Automated Talairach Atlas labels for functional brain mapping. Hum. Brain Mapp. 10, 120–131 (2000)

    2000

  78. [86]

    & Gallant, J

    Dupré la Tour, T., Visconti di Oleggio Castello, M. & Gallant, J. L. The Voxelwise Encoding Model framework: A tutorial introduction to fitting encoding models to fMRI data. Imaging Neurosci. 3, imag_a_00575 (2025)

    2025

  79. [87]

    & Bandettini, P

    Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M. & Bandettini, P. A. Representational similarity analysis - connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2, (2008)

    2008

  80. [88]

    van den Bosch, J. J. et al. A python toolbox for representational similarity analysis. bioRxiv 2025–05 (2025). 33 AUTHOR’S NOTE This work was supported by National Institutes of Health grant s R01EY028535 and R01NS089069 to BZM. JD was supported by the Carnegie Mellon Universi...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed June 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.