Abstract
In their comment, Vinken and Vogels [1] take issue with our claim [2] that "IT neurons encode long-term, latent probabilistic information about stimulus occurrence". They offer a biologically plausible model of our findings, which they argue is based on neuronal fatigue. However, like our account, their model includes latent variables that are modulated slowly with stimulus probability; models without such latent processes, such as those based on temporally local fatigue effects, cannot explain our findings. Although we share their desire for more clarity about the mechanisms underlying visual expectation, and appreciate their thoughtful critique, we argue here that their comment mostly restates our findings with a more complex model and alternative terminology.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
