ライフサイエンスコーパス: object recognition

1 and background variation (a.k.a. core visual object recognition).

2 of the ventral stream that are important for object recognition.

3 ically based linkage of visual attributes to object recognition.

4 ical hierarchy, which may ultimately lead to object recognition.

5 ther functions, such as color perception and object recognition.

6 was assessed by Morris water maze and novel object recognition.

7 ly uncorrelated both with g and with general object recognition.

8 integration against attentional selection in object recognition.

9 eased locomotor activity, and impaired novel object recognition.

10 r temporal cortex, an area underlying visual object recognition.

11 ils into a holistic percept is essential for object recognition.

12 ns with more posterior regions during visual object recognition.

13 tasks such as navigation, prey detection and object recognition.

14 tex attempts to recover semantic content for object recognition.

15 cts in clutter, and is a major constraint on object recognition.

16 l and fusiform gyri, two areas important for object recognition.

17 sfer of complex tactile information, such as object recognition.

18 in human and nonhuman primates serves visual object recognition.

19 of IT neurons, as the final stage of visual object recognition.

20 s are key to understanding biological visual object recognition.

21 indow into the detailed processes underlying object recognition.

22 ul model to study the neuronal substrates of object recognition.

23 lidation and the beneficial effects of E2 on object recognition.

24 e- and high-level vision, including face and object recognition.

25 vity in a high-level visual area involved in object recognition.

26 e importance of low-level image features for object recognition.

27 n required for either luminance detection or object recognition.

28 questions as to how shape is represented for object recognition.

29 separation, whereas, CA3 underpins identical object recognition.

30 mprehension difficulties after factoring out object recognition.

31 oral (PIT) cortex cells contribute to visual object recognition.

32 ed at fear extinction and novel- and spatial object recognition.

33 ry enhancing effects in a rat model of novel object recognition.

34 NNs) are currently the best at modeling core object recognition, a behavior that is supported by the

35 ral visual stream underlies key human visual object recognition abilities.

36 int-invariant representations that supported object recognition across large, novel, and complex chan

37 assical constancy effects, serves to enhance object recognition across varied lighting conditions in

38 recognition mechanisms are not necessary for object recognition after laboratory-based training.

39 logies as well as biomechanical modeling and object-recognition algorithms will facilitate the applic

40 architectures that better support invariant object recognition also produce image representations th

41 dings with exposure settings that facilitate object recognition; analysis of the resulting recordings

42 whisker deprivation, impaired texture novel object recognition and altered social behavior.

43 high-contrast images, relevant for invariant object recognition and considered a challenge for state-

44 g from artificial neural networks trained on object recognition and data-driven convolutional neural

45 n reduced long-term but not short-term novel object recognition and decreased long-term potentiation

46 l activity in ventral temporal cortex during object recognition and demonstrated the ability to align

47 ht to go beyond qualitative models of visual object recognition and determine whether a single neuron

48 ur results show that spontaneous cross-modal object recognition and dynamic weighting of sensory inpu

49 duced lasting cognitive impairments in novel object recognition and less severe deficits in Y-maze be

50 perform males on a memory task that combines object recognition and location but only when circulatin

51 nted the ability of SKF81297 to rescue novel object recognition and long-term potentiation.

52 on, cognitive function was assessed by novel object recognition and Morris water maze.

53 e the first to reveal direct facilitation of object recognition and neural representation by scene ba

54 tions in signal processing, computer vision, object recognition and neurobiology.

55 f nonemotional cognitive tasks (in the novel object recognition and object pattern of separation test

56 nd memory performance was studied with novel object recognition and object place recognition assays.

57 e box assay and impaired memory in the novel object recognition and object place recognition assays.

58 PPT) or ERbeta (DPN) agonists enhanced novel object recognition and object placement memory in ovarie

59 ommunication and social cognition as well as object recognition and other functions.

60 ocampal behavioral assays, it prevents novel object recognition and placement without affecting conte

61 s an important tool for applications such as object recognition and remote sensing.

62 KO in PV-interneurons significantly impaired object recognition and social interactions and elevated

63 nge of tactile behaviors such as navigation, object recognition and social interactions.

64 dendritic spine density and consolidation of object recognition and spatial memories in ovariectomize

65 apical CA1 spine density and enhancing both object recognition and spatial memory consolidation.

66 17beta-estradiol (E2) to enhance hippocampal object recognition and spatial memory depends on rapid a

67 DH infusion of the GPER agonist G-1 enhanced object recognition and spatial memory in ovariectomized

68 ibitor SP600125 prevented G-1 from enhancing object recognition and spatial memory, but the ERK inhib

69 Although GPER activation did enhance object recognition and spatial memory, it did so by acti

70 function as an estrogen receptor to regulate object recognition and spatial memory.

71 0 knockout mice show significant deficits in object recognition and spatial memory.

72 PTZ restored long-term object recognition and spatial working memory for at lea

73 apable of performing spontaneous cross-modal object recognition and that the sensory inputs are weigh

74 the IT cortex causally supports general core object recognition and that the underlying IT coding dim

75 a ventral and dorsal stream specializing in object recognition and vision for action, respectively.

76 rt-term memory of mice was assessed by novel object recognition and Y-maze tests.

77 nition and spatial memory, measured by novel object recognition and Y-maze tests.

78 PV-M1 knockout mice exhibited impaired novel object recognition and, to a lesser extent, impaired spa

79 d impairment of memory retrieval on both the object-recognition and the object-location tasks.

80 types of memory were assessed: item memory (object recognition) and associative memory (cued recogni

81 onsists of a ventral stream, specialized for object recognition, and a dorsal visual stream, which is

82 ted by Y-maze spontaneous alternation, novel object recognition, and Barnes maze spatial memory tests

83 ction, including deficits in spatial memory, object recognition, and fear conditioning.

84 eted tests assessing their face recognition, object recognition, and general cognitive abilities.

85 neural networks to demonstrate high fidelity object recognition, and in future can open new direction

86 assayed by social recognition memory, novel object recognition, and Morris water-maze tests.

87 ted using commodity instruments, image-based object recognition, and open source computational method

88 sessed on the novel place recognition, novel object recognition, and temporal order tasks was not onl

89 brain areas thought to be involved in visual object recognition are arranged in a hierarchy.

90 in primate V1 and deep features learned for object recognition are better explanations for V1 comput

91 radial-arm water maze performance and novel object recognition as early as 8 months, outcrossed Abet

92 ried out tests assessing facial identity and object recognition, as well as basic visual processing.

93 A novel hypothesis of object recognition asserts that multiple regions are eng

94 ffects were assessed by Open-field and Novel-Object-Recognition at P30 and P120.

95 ctile interaction could reflect a process of object recognition, based on the prior that many objects

96 To test true object recognition behavior (rather than image matching)

97 ng, it is not known whether invariant visual object recognition behavior is quantitatively comparable

98 uestion, we systematically compared the core object recognition behavior of two monkeys with that of

99 re aggregated to characterize "pooled human" object recognition behavior, as well as 33 separate Mech

100 pothesis can quantitatively account for core object recognition behavior.

101 w ventral stream neuronal responses underlie object recognition behavior.

102 ior temporal (IT) population supports visual object recognition behavior.

103 cation and thus informs our understanding of object recognition breakdown in peripheral vision [2].

104 nferotemporal (IT) cortex is responsible for object recognition, but it is unclear how the representa

105 d found, that affect influenced the speed of object recognition by modulating the speed and amplitude

106 Moreover, the model shows how object recognition can be achieved by a sparse readout o

107 were shown to be successful in solving core object recognition, can perform similarly well in proble

108 s, and monkeys demonstrate robust crossmodal object recognition (CMOR), identifying objects across se

109 noid-specific structure critical for complex object recognition, contains a tertiary, longitudinal su

110 n for luminance detection (Ricco's area) and object recognition (crowding zone) are measured at vario

111 prevented disease-related grip strength and object recognition deficits, mHTT accumulation, astrogli

112 nsfer of tactile object experience to visual object recognition, demonstrating that the two senses ar

113 of shape and texture.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Object recognition depends on our ability to see both th

114 To examine how invariant object recognition develops in a newborn visual system,

115 asks dependent on hippocampus (Y-maze, novel object recognition, dual solution cross-maze) and also s

116 ses the possibility that multiple classes of object recognition failures in peripheral vision can be

117 ion exhibit a learning and memory deficit in object recognition, fear conditioning, and Morris water

118 nstrated dose-dependent improvement in novel object recognition following acute POM, which was not ob

119 e in the substrate of cortical processing in object recognition following long-term adaptation to mac

120 ntains protocols for echocardiography, novel object recognition, grip strength, rotarod, glucose tole

121 e may be involved in odor representation and object recognition has been largely ignored.

122 So far, spontaneous cross-modal object recognition has only been shown in a few mammalia

123 .SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Neural correlates of object recognition have traditionally been studied by fl

124 -order visual patterns in the early stage of object recognition hierarchy.

125 n adult emotional behaviours and on temporal object recognition: hM4Di mimicked MS effects, while hM3

126 rderline recognition memory deficit by novel object recognition in aged Tmprss9-/- female mice, but n

127 ion scale, which might bear implications for object recognition in ASD.

128 Stress did impair novel object recognition in both sexes and social preference i

129 dpoint, it is not clear how the challenge of object recognition in clutter can be solved if downstrea

130 le, unifying model of how the brain performs object recognition in clutter.

131 , unifying account of how the brain performs object recognition in clutter.

132 The neural mechanisms underlying object recognition in cluttered scenes (i.e., containing

133 how that simulations using the HMAX model of object recognition in cortex can fit the aforementioned

134 ple short training trials also rescued novel object recognition in Fmr1 KOs.

135 ovides the neural basis for efficient visual object recognition in humans.

136 es of contextual fear conditioning and novel object recognition in I-2 heterozygous mice suggest that

137 cesses on difficult standardized problems of object recognition in images.

138 f DPFE into perirhinal cortex restored novel object recognition in long-access meth rats.

139 ied, including tasks to assess memory (novel object recognition in open field and V-maze paradigms),

140 ew on the spatio-temporal dynamics of visual object recognition in the human visual brain.

141 xposure alters the circuitry responsible for object recognition, in this case obviating the need for

142 Recently, neural network models of visual object recognition, including biological and deep networ

143 Current computational models of object recognition, including recent deep-learning netwo

144 Size-invariant object recognition is a bedrock for many perceptual and

145 e in understanding the process of biological object recognition is how these neurons learn to form se

146 the neural level, that visual integration in object recognition is impaired in ASD, when details had

147 Furthermore we show that cross-modal object recognition is influenced by a dynamic weighting

148 ains of cognition, and so it is crucial that object recognition is maintained across the lifespan.

149 pable of advanced visual processing, such as object recognition, is limited.

150 For object recognition, it appears that there is mandatory i

151 To deepen our understanding of object recognition, it is critical to understand the nat

152 Existing models of object recognition lack such capabilities.

153 y shows that powerful, robust, and invariant object recognition machinery is an inherent feature of t

154 ortex, the part of the brain responsible for object recognition, makes this problem experimentally tr

155 bly mediated through root exudates, and root-object recognition mediated by physical contact at the r

156 Object recognition memory (ORM) confers the ability to d

157 ss deletes active ORM.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Object recognition memory (ORM) is essential to remember

158 tudies, RGFP966 increased subthreshold novel object recognition memory and cocaine place preference i

159 rain Crtl1 knock-out mice enhances long-term object recognition memory and facilitates long-term depr

160 Glra2 knockout mice exhibited deficits in object recognition memory and impaired long-term potenti

161 y mice treated prenatally had improved novel object recognition memory but do not show improvement wi

162 est that histone acetylation is critical for object recognition memory consolidation and the benefici

163 ory for the training object, indicating that object recognition memory consolidation is dependent on

164 n normal adult synaptic plasticity and novel object recognition memory in mice exposed to ethanol at

165 sin impairs long-term potentiation and novel object recognition memory in mice.

166 ibition, improved social behavior, and novel object recognition memory in NMDA receptor hypofunctioni

167 No difference was observed in object recognition memory in the GluD1 KO mice.

168 dating the role of the rodent hippocampus in object recognition memory is critical for establishing t

169 e Mnemonic Similarity Task (MST), a modified object recognition memory task, to be highly sensitive t

170 induced cognitive improvements in the novel object recognition memory test in NR1-KD animals, and it

171 llection and familiarity were assessed in an object recognition memory test using receiver operator c

172 ted early-life adversity-induced deficits in object recognition memory that emerged by 12 months of a

173 The deficit in long-term object recognition memory was restored by the administra

174 n is critical for establishment of long-term object recognition memory, but is not required for estab

175 demonstrate a role for the human PRC during object recognition memory, following a period of object,

176 n the open field, restore PPI, improve novel object recognition memory, partially normalize social be

177 Object recognition memory, shifting between established

178 paration whereas CA3 predicts performance in object recognition memory.

179 ntextual fear memory, but impaired long-term object recognition memory.

180 physiological processes thought to underlie object recognition memory.

181 ic antagonist NBQX was sufficient to disrupt object recognition memory.

182 nd AMPA-mediated transmission contributes to object recognition memory.

183 cation memory in the rat, but did not affect object recognition memory.

184 s in spatial working memory and in long-term object recognition memory.

185 the perirhinal cortex, a neural correlate of object recognition memory.

186 the effects of pre-retrieval interference on object recognition memory.

187 tex, which corresponds to impaired long-term object recognition memory.

188 corticoid effects on different components of object recognition memory.

189 t memory-enhancing effects in a rat model of object recognition memory.

190 At three doses tested in the mouse novel object recognition model (1, 3, and 10 mg/kg s.c.), 6s d

191 he models include well-known neuroscientific object-recognition models (e.g. HMAX, VisNet) along with

192 teral or right-sided inferotemporal/fusiform object recognition network, which remained relatively sp

193 e in the inhibitor-treated group using novel object recognition (NOR) and fear conditioning (FC).

194 ss meth self-administration results in novel object recognition (NOR) memory deficits in rats.

195 rsing the effect of scopolamine in the novel object recognition (NOR) paradigm with a minimum effecti

196 pocampus at distinct stages during the novel object recognition (NOR) task: during object memory enco

197 Using the novel object recognition (NOR) test to evaluate cognitive perf

198 nt began 6-weeks post-irradiation with novel object recognition (NOR), egocentric learning, allocentr

199 er-dose-dependent anxiety and impaired novel object recognition (NOR).

200 e flexibility, social interaction, and novel object recognition (NOR).

201 ting revealed a significant deficit in novel object recognition, novel location recognition and socia

202 ate-of-the-art in speech recognition, visual object recognition, object detection and many other doma

203 ry in tests of cued fear conditioning, novel object recognition, object location recognition, conditi

204 -term memories, including fear conditioning, object recognition, object placement, social recognition

205 ocial behaviors or memories, including novel object recognition or fear conditioning, were not affect

206 improved non-spatial cognitive performance (object recognition, p<0.016 vs. saline) but had little e

207 impairment of learning and memory in a novel object recognition paradigm.

208 cognitive performance in working memory and object recognition paradigms at baseline and after psych

209 Novel object recognition, passive avoidance test and Morris wa

210 tion observation network (AON) and a ventral object recognition pathway.

211 ate visual system achieves remarkable visual object recognition performance even in brief presentatio

212 stream of nonhuman primates and measured the object recognition performance of >100 human observers.

213 g hypothesis quantitatively account for core object recognition performance over a broad range of tas

214 odel provides a novel prediction about human object recognition performance, namely, that target reco

215 designed a database of images for evaluating object recognition performance.

216 The object recognition procedure was tested on samples with

217 erve as an important contextual influence on object recognition processes.

218 Object recognition relies on a series of transformations

219 omputational principles underlying invariant object recognition remain mostly unknown.

220 erior temporal (IT) cortex that support core object recognition require additional time to develop fo

221 t captures across sensory systems to perform object recognition.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Our world is f

222 iew of the effects of oestradiol on spatial, object recognition, social and fear memories.

223 Impairments in object recognition, spatial memory retention, and networ

224 s involved in this type of learning (such as object recognition, spatial orientation, and associative

225 s of IT while monkeys performed several core object recognition subtasks, interleaved trial-by trial.

226 Scenes strongly facilitate object recognition, such as when we make out the shape o

227 ht not only how it constitutes an archetypal object recognition system but also how it may provide a

228 by analogy to the neural organization of the object recognition system, that demonstration of modulat

229 ion of LC-NE enhanced performance in a novel object recognition task and reduced hyperactivity in Ts6

230 ognitive activity (1 mg/kg, ip) in the novel object recognition task as a model of memory deficit.

231 sed different strength of training for novel object recognition task in mice.

232 this work we used different versions of the object recognition task in rats to study the role of the

233 simple, sufficient quantitative model: each object recognition task is learned from the spatially di

234 Learning an object recognition task was not affected either.

235 Spatial memory was impaired on the object recognition task with BPA animals spending signif

236 ) was evaluated by a short term memory task (object recognition task) and immunohistochemical stainin

237 ly after training in a hippocampal-dependent object recognition task, mice received a dorsal hippocam

238 Mutant mice showed deficits in the novel object recognition task, suggesting hippocampal dysfunct

239 us maze, holeboard, light-dark box and novel object recognition task.

240 gnetoencephalography while they completed an object recognition task.

241 wer object discrimination score in the novel object recognition task.

242 -, but not the long-term memory in the novel-object recognition task.

243 onal performance of IT cortex on this visual object recognition task.

244 ve alterations, including defects in a novel object recognition task.

245 We used the novel object-recognition task as a model of nonemotional memor

246 ignaled, and renewal) and two context-guided object recognition tasks (with 3D and 2D objects), we ex

247 We used crossmodal object recognition tasks in rats to study the neurobiolo

248 Monkeys were trained to perform binary object recognition tasks on a match-to-sample paradigm.

249 They comprised tabletop object recognition tasks, a self-assessment mobility que

250 mple, become engaged in auditory and tactile object-recognition tasks.

251 d both the discrimination index in the novel object recognition test and indoxyl sulfate concentratio

252 memories were robustly improved in the novel-object recognition test and Morris water-maze spatial ta

253 We assessed cognition with the novel object recognition test and stained for amyloid precurso

254 e profile as it improved memory in the novel object recognition test but had no antidepressant or anx

255 im, Y-maze spontaneous alternation and novel-object recognition test performance that developed after

256 Finally, an object recognition test performed in mice revealed that

257 Notably, the novel-object recognition test showed that the treatment amelio

258 In an in vivo object recognition test with CD1 mice, oral administrati

259 dark box test) and cognitive function (novel object recognition test).

260 ne-lesioned mice were subjected to the novel object recognition test, and long-term potentiation was

261 Indeed, p140Cap(-/-) mice are impaired in object recognition test, as well as in LTP and in LTD me

262 gnitive impairment, as assessed by the novel object recognition test, but not signs of brain inflamma

263 , we found cognitive impairment in the novel object recognition test, the object location task, and s

264 formances observed at 0.3 and 1 mg/kg on the object recognition test.

265 itive impairment when examined using a novel object recognition test.

266 We measured human performance in 64 object recognition tests using thousands of challenging

267 connectome), auditory word comprehension and object recognition tests were obtained from 67 chronic l

268 in LTP and show behavioural abnormalities in object recognition tests.

269 r-conditioning, Morris water maze, and novel object recognition tests.

270 ear conditioning, object location, and novel object recognition tests.

271 d short-term memory deficits, as assessed by object-recognition tests, and was effective at improving

272 hus endows us with a remarkable capacity for object recognition, texture discrimination, sensory-moto

273 de spatiotemporal constraints on theories of object recognition that involve recurrent processing.

274 Core object recognition, the ability to rapidly recognize obj

275 Size-invariant object recognition-the ability to recognize objects acro

276 ng object memory acquisition improves future object recognition through MCH-receptor-dependent pathwa

277 Object recognition thus required perceptual integration

278 It is crucial for many tasks, from object recognition to tool use, and yet how the brain re

279 owding (the deleterious effect of clutter on object recognition) to the precision of saccadic eye mov

280 on of visual crowding, a major limitation on object recognition, to show that, in humans with long-st

281 ut not infralimbic cortex, immediately after object recognition training enhanced 24-hour memory of b

282 On the other hand, object recognition under more challenging conditions (i.

283 Here, we characterize neural dynamics of object recognition under occlusion, using magnetoencepha

284 d visual cortex could interact to facilitate object recognition under occlusion.

285 an essential role for recurrent processes in object recognition under occlusion.

286 orward and recurrent processes contribute in object recognition under occlusion.

287 One such example is object recognition under occlusion.

288 have led to ever higher performing models of object recognition using artificial deep neural networks

289 In the standard hierarchical model of visual object recognition, V1 neurons were commonly assumed to

290 pus enhanced selective attention and spatial object recognition via the dopamine D1/D5 receptor.

291 networks trained end-to-end in tasks such as object recognition, video games, and board games, achiev

292 Furthermore, short-term memory for object recognition was intact in Kv7.2(S559A) mice.

293 Novel object recognition was not impaired in R192Q mice; howev

294 tative models of the biological substrate of object recognition, we ask: can a single ventral stream

295 ely from local populations supporting visual object recognition, we show that recurrent circuitry sup

296 ated that fitness-related changes in complex object recognition were modulated by hippocampal perfusi

297 were modestly or minimally impaired in novel object recognition, whereas similar-duration multimodal

298 form a remarkably rapid and robust basis for object recognition which belies the difficulties faced b

299 eral occipital complex) selectively impaired object recognition, while TMS over scene-selective corte

300 enhancing effects in a mouse model of novel object recognition with improved tolerability and reduce