Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
  • My alerts

eNeuro

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
PreviousNext
Commentary, Cognition and Behavior

Inverted Encoding Models Assay Population-Level Stimulus Representations, Not Single-Unit Neural Tuning

Thomas C. Sprague, Kirsten C. S. Adam, Joshua J. Foster, Masih Rahmati, David W. Sutterer and Vy A. Vo
eNeuro 11 May 2018, 5 (3) ENEURO.0098-18.2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0098-18.2018
Thomas C. Sprague
1Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thomas C. Sprague
Kirsten C. S. Adam
2Department of Psychology and Institute for Mind and Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kirsten C. S. Adam
Joshua J. Foster
2Department of Psychology and Institute for Mind and Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joshua J. Foster
Masih Rahmati
1Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David W. Sutterer
2Department of Psychology and Institute for Mind and Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David W. Sutterer
Vy A. Vo
3Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Vy A. Vo
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Information

DOI 
https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0098-18.2018
PubMed 
29876523
Published By 
Society for Neuroscience
History 
  • Received March 15, 2018
  • Revision received April 26, 2018
  • Accepted May 3, 2018
  • Published online May 11, 2018.
Copyright & Usage 
Copyright © 2018 Sprague et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

Author Information

  1. Thomas C. Sprague1,
  2. Kirsten C. S. Adam2,*,
  3. Joshua J. Foster2,*,
  4. Masih Rahmati1,*,
  5. David W. Sutterer2,* and
  6. Vy A. Vo3,*
  1. 1Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003
  2. 2Department of Psychology and Institute for Mind and Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
  3. 3Neurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
  1. Correspondence should be addressed to Thomas C. Sprague, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, New York, NY, 10003. E-mail: tsprague{at}nyu.edu.
View Full Text

Author contributions

  1. Author contributions: T.C.S., K.C.S.A., J.J.F., M.R., D.W.S., and V.A.V. wrote the paper.

  2. ↵* K.C.S.A., J.J.F., M.R., D.W.S., and V.A.V. contributed equally to this work.

Disclosures

  • The authors declare no competing financial interests.

  • This work was supported by the National Eye Institute (NEI) Grant F32-EY028438 (to T.C.S.), a National Science Foundation Graduate Student Fellowship (to V.A.V.), the NEI Grant R01-EY016407 (M.R.), and the National Institute of Mental Health Grant 2R01-MH087214-06A1 (K.C.S.A., J.J.F., and D.W.S.).

Funding

  • HHS | NIH | National Eye Institute (NEI)

    F32-EY028438; R01-EY016407
  • National Science Foundation (NSF)

    Graduate Research Fellowship
  • HHS | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)

    2R01-MH087214-06A1

Other Version

  • previous version (May 11, 2018).
  • You are viewing the most recent version of this article.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Article usage

Select a custom date range for the past year
E.g., 2021-03-04
to
E.g., 2021-03-04

Article usage: May 2018 to March 2021

AbstractFullPdf
May 201810510381
Jun 2018262300136
Jul 2018280115100
Aug 201812211281
Sep 2018556738
Oct 2018367738
Nov 2018367338
Dec 2018194715
Total 20181861791827
Jan 2019227428
Feb 2019228018
Mar 2019712745
Apr 201988827
May 20191515633
Jun 2019109320
Jul 2019109441
Aug 201954719
Sep 201965728
Oct 201974918
Nov 201964121
Dec 201923611
Total 2019120942309
Jan 202064812
Feb 202054621
Mar 202015016
Apr 202023612
May 202027032
Jun 202032622
Jul 202043614
Aug 202024916
Sep 202066324
Oct 202029839
Nov 202046518
Dec 202047914
Total 202041666240
Jan 2021411219
Feb 202107115
Mar 2021051
Total 2021418835
Total202625871411
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (3)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 3
May/June 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Inverted Encoding Models Assay Population-Level Stimulus Representations, Not Single-Unit Neural Tuning
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Inverted Encoding Models Assay Population-Level Stimulus Representations, Not Single-Unit Neural Tuning
Thomas C. Sprague, Kirsten C. S. Adam, Joshua J. Foster, Masih Rahmati, David W. Sutterer, Vy A. Vo
eNeuro 11 May 2018, 5 (3) ENEURO.0098-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0098-18.2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Inverted Encoding Models Assay Population-Level Stimulus Representations, Not Single-Unit Neural Tuning
Thomas C. Sprague, Kirsten C. S. Adam, Joshua J. Foster, Masih Rahmati, David W. Sutterer, Vy A. Vo
eNeuro 11 May 2018, 5 (3) ENEURO.0098-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0098-18.2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Significance Statement
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • cognitive Vision
  • computational neuroimaging
  • fMRI
  • inverted encoding model

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Commentary

  • Promisomics and the Short-Circuiting of Mind
  • Against the Epistemological Primacy of the Hardware: The Brain from Inside Out, Turned Upside Down
  • A Differential Effect of Lovastatin versus Simvastatin in Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Show more Commentary

Cognition and Behavior

  • Promisomics and the Short-Circuiting of Mind
  • Against the Epistemological Primacy of the Hardware: The Brain from Inside Out, Turned Upside Down
  • A Differential Effect of Lovastatin versus Simvastatin in Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Commentaries
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2021 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.