Repetition Suppression in Monkey Inferotemporal Cortex: Relation to Behavioral Priming — TEI-tagged view
Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is null-result because the headline contribution is the absence of the predicted priming-suppression correlation; the paper also contains an existence component (monkeys show repetition priming, previously undemonstrated) and a model-adjudication component (scaling over sharpening), which a single claim type cannot carry. phenomenon was normalised to the physiological side (repetition suppression) because that is what was measured neurally; the behavioural counterpart is defined in the same text as 'Repetition priming is a behavioral phenomenon, widely studied in humans, whereby prior experience with a stimulus leads to faster discrimination on subsequent encounters.' method is tagged electrophysiology, though the study is jointly behavioural (symmetry-decision task) and single-unit; the two were recorded simultaneously. Replication status is untested: the paper reports convergence with prior human fMRI null findings (captured as a claim_relation) but no direct replication of its own monkey result, and it notes a contrasting positive correlation in prefrontal cortex. Many equations and statistics in the extraction are corrupted by '(cid:N)' glyph artifacts, so all quotes were drawn from prose passages free of those artifacts. 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 4 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.statistics[0].evidence, content_tags.statistics[1].evidence, content_tags.statistics[6].evidence, content_tags.statistics[9].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.
The quality of the text these quotes were cut from. residual-ligature-artifacts: some fi/fl were lost in an earlier cleanup and the source could not be re-fetched cleanly (personal copy / paywalled / corrupt text layer). Text is complete and readable but not pristine; not enriched until re-sourced. [AMENDED 2026-08-23 by the project - the existing note is about a different fault and this record has a second: operator-codes-not-extractable: 0 Highwire operator codes in an internal file (0 distinct, commonest -) - '/H11002' is a minus and '/H11021' is '<'. THE CODE IS FUSED TO THE NUMBER THAT FOLLOWS IT, so 'M /H1100520.3' is 'M = 20.3' and a reader sees a garbage token where the relation was. 26 live quotes, 4 carrying a code - AND EVERY ONE OF THEM IS IN content tags statistics, THE LAYER WHERE THE OPERATOR IS THE CLAIM. Across the three affected records that is 9 hits out of 9.
Some quotes on this page contain (cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 1 character in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.
1 quote on this page breaks a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated a word at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.
3 quotes on this page were cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. They are verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.
Full text not reproduced here. We could not establish a licence for this paper’s text, so we have chosen not to republish it. The tag layer is ours and is below; the article is at the source. Read the full paper at the source:
DOI 10.1152/jn.01042.2006 ·
source page.
Our tag layer for this paper
Priming analysis (Sivroni & Stark meta-disciplinary definition; cited to Sivroni et al. 2023)Three characteristics: A · association S · secondariness M · modulation
| P · prime | a repeated image |
| T · target | image processing / behavioural response |
| B · baseline | neural & behavioural response to a novel image |
| E · priming effect | repetition suppression of firing + faster response |
| A · association | congruent (positive) |
Cross-disciplinary analysiscontent-tags & facets: phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text
| phenomenon | repetition suppression in inferotemporal cortex— “Repetition suppression is a physiological phenomenon, first demonstrated in recording studies of monkey inferotemporal cortex (IT), whereby the strength of the neuronal response to a visual stimulus declines over successive presentations.” |
| claim-type | null-result— “We conclude that repetition suppression accompanies repetition priming but is unlikely to be its cause.” |
| method — evidence | — “We monitored the activity of 152 neurons in anterior IT (85 in m1; 67 in m2) during the same 118 sessions on which the behavioral analysis was based.” |
| transfer | from behavioural priming experiments: the inferential logic of behavioural priming - infer the properties of a representation from how much repeating a stimulus changes the response to it - carried into fMRI as MR adaptation— “In a manner analogous to the use of behavioral measures in priming experiments, the MR adaptation technique seeks to draw inferences about the response properties of single neurons from the degree of stimulus invariance of BOLD signal adaptation (Grill-Spector et al. 1999; Kourtzi and Kanwisher 2001; Vuilleumier et al. 2002).” | transfers[0] |
| replicates | Li et al. 1993; Ringo 1996 (late onset of repetition suppression in IT)— “In agreement with previous reports obtained outside the context of the priming paradigm (Li et al. 1993; Ringo 1996), we found that the initial phase of the visual response was identical between the first and second presentations and that suppression took hold only late in the response (Fig. 6).” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Maccotta and Buckner 2004; Sayres and Grill-Spector 2006; Wig et al. 2005 (no priming-BOLD correlation in ventral stream)— “This result is consistent with the findings of several recent studies that failed to detect any correlation across human subjects between priming of behavior and BOLD signal reduction in regions of ventral stream visual cortex (Maccotta and Buckner 2004; Sayres and Grill-Spector 2006; Wig et al. 2005).” | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | the sharpening model of repetition suppression (Desimone 1996; Wiggs and Martin 1998)— “They clearly conform more closely to the predictions of the scaling model (Fig. 9B) than to those of the sharpening model (Fig. 9A).” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) memory kernel analysis— “To determine whether the priming effects we observed could be partially attributable to response repetition, we adapted from Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) the method of memory kernel analysis (see METHODS, Memory kernel analysis of response repetition effects).” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | THE CONCLUSION IS A NEGATIVE AND IT FITS IN ONE LINE: `We conclude that repetition suppression accompanies repetition priming but is unlikely to be its cause.` The neural correlate everyone reaches for is a passenger. Carlesimo2004, merged into this corpus forty minutes ago, reads its rCBF decreases as `the reduced neural activity needed to reprocess recently seen words` - suppression explaining priming, taken as read; and Desimone1996 calls suppression `an intrinsic property of visual cortical areas`. Three records, three positions on whether a reduced response is the mechanism or the companion, and none of them assembled on purpose— “We conclude that repetition suppression accompanies repetition priming but is unlikely to be its cause.” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE ARGUMENT IS TURNED FROM A STATISTICAL QUESTION INTO A MECHANICAL ONE, WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO RULE OUT A CO-OCCURRING SIGNAL: `Whether repetition suppression indeed contributes to repetition priming must depend in part on how it affects the stimulus selectivity of neurons.` Correlation is granted, not contested. The test is whether suppression has the PROPERTIES a cause would need - because a uniform reduction across all neurons degrades the representation, while priming requires it sharpened. A correlate can only be dismissed by asking what it would have to be like— “Whether repetition suppression indeed contributes to repetition priming must depend in part on how it affects the stimulus selectivity of neurons.” | senses[1] |
| sense | THE DEFINITION IS PURELY PHYSIOLOGICAL AND THAT IS WHY THE PAPER IS POSSIBLE: `Repetition suppression is a physiological phenomenon, first demonstrated in recording studies of monkey inferotemporal cortex (IT), whereby the strength of the neuronal response to a visual stimulus declines over successive presentations.` No meaning, no memory, no behaviour in it. A construct defined without reference to the thing it is supposed to explain can be tested against that thing; one defined as `the neural basis of priming` could not be. Compare Carlesimo2004's repetition priming, defined by what the test INSTRUCTIONS do not mention - also an operational definition, and also load-bearing— “Repetition suppression is a physiological phenomenon, first demonstrated in recording studies of monkey inferotemporal cortex (IT), whereby the strength of the neuronal response to a visual stimulus declines over successive presentations.” | senses[2] |
| control | the first twelve trials of every session were discarded — held — rules out that an early, transient, NON-STIMULUS-SPECIFIC drop in both reaction time and firing rate is counted as a priming effect— “Because there was a tendency toward a transient, nonstimulus-specific decrease in both RT and firing rate very early in a session, we excluded the first 12 trials of each session from subsequent analysis to restrict our focus to data collected under stationary conditions.” | controls[0] |
| control | responses to stimuli classified as subthreshold by a signal-detection thresholding filter were excluded — held — rules out that suppression is measured on responses too weak to be distinguished from noise— “Third, we excluded responses to stimuli that were identified as subthreshold on the basis of the signaldetection thresholding filter (described in METHODS, Assessing priming and suppression effects).” | controls[1] |
| audit | repetition suppression —distinct-from→ repetition priming — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says suppression ACCOMPANIES priming but is unlikely to be its cause; distinct-from is loose.— “We conclude that repetition suppression accompanies repetition priming but is unlikely to be its cause.” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | repetition suppression —distinct-from→ repetition priming — 'distinct-from' IS THE CLOSEST THE VOCABULARY GETS AND IT LOSES HALF THE SENTENCE. The paper says two things at once: they ACCOMPANY each other, and one is NOT the cause of the other. The enforced types offer causes / operationalised-as / distinct-from / contrasted-with / part-of / is-a / same-as / renamed-across-fields, and none of them expresses 'co-occurs with but does not cause'. 'distinct-from' carries the negative half - they are not one thing, and the neural measure is not the behavioural mechanism - and drops the positive half, which is that the correlation is real and granted. Weight 0.95 because the sentence is the paper's stated conclusion and both endpoints are named. The missing type belongs on Shir's schema list: a relation for a correlate that has been tested and ruled out as a cause is exactly what a corpus about definitions should be able to record, and it is the second-commonest finding in this literature after the effect itself.— “We conclude that repetition suppression accompanies repetition priming but is unlikely to be its cause.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | repetition suppression —distinct-from→ repetition priming — 0.95— “We conclude that repetition suppression accompanies repetition priming but is unlikely to be its cause.” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| replication | untested |
| limitation | The correlation analysis had limited power, so a very weak cross-trial correlation between suppression and priming cannot be excluded.— “Because the correlation analysis was of limited power, we cannot rule out the possibility that there was a very weak cross-trial correlation between suppression and priming.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Independent noise in firing rates and reaction times could in principle have masked an underlying weak correlation.— “We cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that the firing rates and reaction times were subject to large independent sources of noise that masked an underlying weak correlation between suppression and priming.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The design confounds elapsed time with the number of intervening trials, so the effect of time interval per se was not tested.— “The experiment was not designed to test explicitly the impact of time interval, as distinct from the number of intervening trials, between repetitions.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The standard Gaussian tuning-curve method for assessing selectivity change could not be applied to IT neurons, forcing an alternative rank-based analysis.— “This approach is not feasible for IT neurons because IT tuning profiles are not generally well fit by Gaussian functions, nor are the dimensions of feature selectivity necessarily manipulable parametrically.” | limitations[3] |
Conceptsterms this paper carries, each with the sentence it was cut from — the layer that joins one paper to another. Terms with no quote yet are on
CONCEPTS.html.
| concept | repetition suppression— “Repetition suppression is a physiological phenomenon, first demonstrated in recording studies of monkey inferotemporal cortex (IT), whereby the strength of the neuronal response to a visual stimulus declines over successive presentations.” | concepts[1] |
| concept | repetition priming— “We conclude that repetition suppression accompanies repetition priming but is unlikely to be its cause.” | concepts[2] |
| concept | inferotemporal cortex— “Repetition suppression is a physiological phenomenon, first demonstrated in recording studies of monkey inferotemporal cortex (IT), whereby the strength of the neuronal response to a visual stimulus declines over successive presentations.” | concepts[3] |
| concept | stimulus selectivity — not defined in this paper's own words; how sharply a neuron distinguishes one stimulus from another. The property the whole causal test turns on: a uniform reduction across neurons degrades the code, and priming needs it sharpened. This is what converts 'do they correlate' into 'could this be a cause'— “Whether repetition suppression indeed contributes to repetition priming must depend in part on how it affects the stimulus selectivity of neurons.” | concepts[7] |
Statistics — cross-field join keysfield-invariant statistical terms, used in their statistical sense (gated on a number / symbol / test). A p-value or a standard deviation means the SAME thing in physics, biology, psychology and sociology — so these are the strongest cross-field join keys. Grounded verbatim.
| ANOVA F | — “To assess the contribution of specic experimental parame- ters to the priming effect, we conducted a three-way ANOVA on the magnitude of priming (RT 1 /H11002RT2) with lag, stimulus type, and monkey as factors.” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| not machine-vouched | ANOVA — not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| chi-square χ² | as written: chi-squared— “Both measures were signicantly biased in each monkey, and the bias was signicantly greater in m2 than in m1 ( P /H110210.05, chi-squared tests).” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| not machine-vouched | chi-square — not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| correlation r | as written: Pearson— “and suppression To assess whether neuronal suppression and behavioral priming were correlated, we performed a Pearson correlation analysis across all pairs of trials between measures of both priming and repetition suppression.” | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| false-discovery-rate FDR | as written: Bonferroni— “Significance of kernels was evaluated for each monkey and each lag by rank-sum tests, with Bonferroni correction.” | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| hypothesis-testing | as written: hypothesis— “Conversely, we can reject the hypothesis that there was a correlation in the experimental data set as strong as the simulated correlation” | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| evidence status note | hypothesis-testing — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| mean μ | as written: mean of— “The function Pois generates a Poisson random number with a mean of Xn.” | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| p-value p | as written: P— “The boxcar continued to slide until the result of the t-test indicated a statistically significant difference (P (cid:6) 0.05) between the first and second presentation for ten consecutive steps of the boxcar.” | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| regression β | as written: linear regression— “To answer these questions, we conducted a linear regression analysis on the visual responses evoked by first and second presentations across all cases in which the monkey” | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| t-test t | — “At each step, we used a two-sided, paired t-test to compare the firing rates evoked on the first and second presentations of each stimulus.” | content_tags.statistics[8] |
| variance σ² | — “icant a correlation such that ring rate explained only a tiny fraction (0.026 2 /H110050.00068) of cross-trial variance in reaction time.” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | content_tags.statistics[9] |
| not machine-vouched | variance — not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.