110:
the most selective face cells usually also discharge, if more weakly, to a variety of individual faces. Furthermore, face-selective cells often vary in their responsiveness to different aspects of faces. This suggests that cell responsiveness arises from the need of a monkey to differentiate among different individual faces rather than among other categories of stimuli such as bananas with their discrimination properties linked to the fact that different individual faces are much more similar to each other in their overall organization and fine detail than other kinds of stimuli. Moreover, it has been suggested that these cells might in fact be responding as specialized feature detector neurons that only function in the holistic context of a face construct.
146:, of Halle Berry", and would fire not only for images of Halle Berry, but also to the actual name "Halle Berry". However, there is no suggestion in that study that only the cell being monitored responded to that concept, nor was it suggested that no other actress would cause that cell to respond (although several other presented images of actresses did not cause it to respond). The researchers believe that they have found evidence for
84:
others published findings on what they would come to call the "Jennifer
Aniston neuron". After operating on patients who experience epileptic seizures, the researchers showed photos of celebrities like Jennifer Aniston. The patients, who were fully conscious, often had a particular neuron fire, suggesting that the brain has Aniston-specific neurons.
109:
However most of the reported face-selective cells are not grandmother/gnostic cells since they do not represent a specific percept, that is, they are not cells narrowly selective in their activations for one face and only one face irrespective of transformations of size, orientation, and color. Even
153:
Further evidence for the theory that a small neural network provides facial recognition was found from analysis of cell recording studies of macaque monkeys. By formatting faces as points in a high-dimensional linear space, the scientists discovered that each face cell’s firing rate is proportional
200:
in 1890 proposed a related idea of a pontifical cell. The pontifical cell is defined as a putative, and implausible cell which had all our experiences. This is different from a concept specific cell in that it is the site of experience of sense data. James's 1890 pontifical cell was instead a cell
101:
of the monkey fire selectively to hands and faces. These cells are selective in that they do not fire for other visual objects important for monkeys such as fruit and genitalia. Research finds that some of these cells can be trained to show high specificity for arbitrary visual objects, and these
83:
observed that the term had "become a shorthand for invoking all of the overwhelming practical arguments against a one-to-one object coding scheme. No one wants to be accused of believing in grandmother cells." However, in that year UCLA neurosurgeons Itzhak Fried, mentee
Rodrigo Quian Quiroga and
67:
Around 1969, Lettvin introduced the term "grandmother cell" in a course he was teaching at MIT, telling a fictitious anecdote about a neurosurgeon who had discovered a group of "mother cells" in the brain that "responded uniquely only to a mother... whether animate or stuffed, seen from before or
63:
described cells in a frog retina as "bug detectors", but the term did not gain wide usage. Several years later, Jerome (Jerry) Lettvin and others also studied these and other cells, eventually resulting in their widely known 1959 paper "What the frog’s eye tells the frog’s brain."
43:. Rather than serving as a serious hypothesis, the "grandmother cell" concept was initially largely used in jokes and came to be used as a "straw man or foil" for a discussion of ensemble theories in introductory textbooks. However, a similar concept, that of the
166:, and is not without critics. The opposite of the grandmother cell theory is the distributed representation theory, that states that a specific stimulus is coded by its unique pattern of activity over a large group of neurons widely distributed in the brain.
113:
One idea has been that such cells form ensembles for the coarse or distributed coding of faces rather than detectors for specific faces. Thus, a specific grandmother may be represented by a specialized ensemble of grandmother or near grandmother cells.
179:
Rather than becoming more and more specific as visual processing proceeds from retina through the different visual centres of the brain, the image is partially dissected into basic features such as vertical lines, colour, speed,
36:(or "coarse" coding), where the unique set of features characterizing the grandmother is detected as a particular activation pattern across an ensemble of neurons, rather than being detected by a specific "grandmother cell".
31:
that represents a complex but specific concept or object. It activates when a person "sees, hears, or otherwise sensibly discriminates" a specific entity, such as their grandmother. It contrasts with the concept of
173:
According to some theories, one would need thousands of cells for each face, as any given face must be recognised from many different angles – profile, 3/4 view, full frontal, from above,
154:
to the projection of an incoming face stimulus onto a single axis in this space, allowing a face cell ensemble of about 200 cells to encode the location of any face in the space.
184:, distributed in various modules separated by relatively large distances. How all these disparate features are re-integrated to form a seamless whole is known as the
239:
432:
68:
behind, upside down or on a diagonal or offered by caricature, photograph or abstraction". In
Lettvin's story, the neurosurgeon went on to remove (
1021:
304:
106:
that have highly selective responses to different categories of stimuli including highly selective responses to individual human faces.
201:"to which the rest of the brain provided a representation" of a grandmother. The experience of grandmother occurred in this cell.
696:
Kreiman, G; Koch, C; Fried, I (2000). "Category specific visual responses of single neurons in the human medial temporal lobe".
544:
Yamane, S; Kaji, S; Kawano, K (1988). "What facial features activate face neurons in the inferotemporal cortex of the monkey?".
451:
72:) all these "several thousand separate neurons" from the brain of Portnoy, the title character of Philip Roth's 1969 novel
102:
would seem to fit the requirements of gnostic/grandmother cells. In addition, evidence exists for cells in the human
1059:
532:
Neurons in the cortex of the temporal lobe and in the amygdala of the monkey with responses selective for faces.
278:
906:
Quian
Quiroga, R.; et al. (2008). "Sparse but not 'Grandmother-cell' coding in the medial temporal lobe".
98:
488:
Perrett, DI; Rolls, ET; Caan, W (1982). "Visual neurons responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex".
1054:
73:
69:
76:, thus curing him from his obsession with his mother, and went on to study "grandmother cells" instead.
864:
931:
888:
781:
721:
678:
622:
569:
513:
270:
1017:
982:
923:
880:
830:
773:
713:
670:
614:
561:
505:
410:
364:
300:
262:
1013:
972:
962:
915:
872:
820:
812:
765:
705:
662:
604:
596:
553:
497:
400:
354:
346:
254:
135:
130:
study found evidence of different cells that fire in response to particular people, such as
24:
609:
185:
143:
33:
868:
600:
977:
950:
825:
800:
359:
334:
48:
40:
1048:
1002:
197:
60:
785:
725:
682:
626:
935:
892:
852:
573:
350:
274:
131:
517:
740:
Single neuron responses in humans during binocular rivalry and flash suppression
139:
103:
967:
919:
163:
147:
1009:
258:
80:
986:
927:
884:
834:
777:
717:
674:
414:
368:
266:
618:
565:
509:
876:
769:
557:
501:
162:
The grandmother cell hypothesis, is an extreme version of the idea of
127:
853:"Invariant visual representation by single neurons in the human brain"
653:
Gross, CG (2000). "Coding for visual categories in the human brain".
405:
388:
28:
816:
587:
Logothetis, NK; Sheinberg, DL (1996). "Visual object recognition".
709:
666:
321:
Integrative activity of the brain; an interdisciplinary approach.
123:
1036:
James W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Dover
477:
Brain, vision, memory: tales in the history of neuroscience.
433:"Neuroscientists Battle Furiously over Jennifer Aniston"
39:
The term was coined around 1969 by cognitive scientist
16:
Hypothetical neuron that responds to a single concept
951:"The Code for Facial Identity in the Primate Brain"
801:"A face feature space in the macaque temporal lobe"
1001:
142:, for example, might respond "to the concept, the
799:Freiwald, WA; Tsao, DY; Livingstone, MS (2009).
756:Jagadeesh, B (2009). "Recognizing grandmother".
335:"Summation and inhibition in the frog's retina"
169:The arguments against the sparseness include:
846:
844:
8:
452:"Searching for the Jennifer Aniston Neuron"
450:Quian Quiroga, Rodrigo (February 1, 2013).
47:, was introduced several years earlier by
976:
966:
824:
608:
404:
358:
158:Sparseness vs distributed representations
641:Inferotemporal cortex and object vision.
233:
851:Quian Quiroga, R.; et al. (2005).
299:. Oxford University Press. p. 43.
231:
229:
227:
225:
223:
221:
219:
217:
215:
213:
209:
240:""Genealogy of the "Grandmother Cell"
150:, rather than for grandmother cells.
118:Individual specific recognition cells
7:
426:
424:
382:
380:
378:
601:10.1146/annurev.ne.19.030196.003045
431:Krulwich, Robert (March 30, 2012).
738:Kreiman G, Fried I, Koch C. 2001.
14:
387:Connor, Charles (23 June 2005).
333:Barlow, Horace (January 1953).
610:11858/00-001M-0000-0013-EBB0-3
351:10.1113/jphysiol.1953.sp004829
1:
908:Trends in Cognitive Sciences
643:Annu Rev Neurosci 19:109–39.
27:neuron", is a hypothetical
1076:
968:10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.011
920:10.1016/j.tics.2007.12.003
389:"Friends and grandmothers"
99:inferior temporal cortex
23:, sometimes called the "
534:Hum Neurobiol 3:209–22.
259:10.1177/107385802237175
51:as a serious proposal.
1004:Cognitive Neuroscience
1000:Rugg, Michael (1997).
295:Clark, Austen (2000).
97:Visual neurons in the
297:A Theory of Sentience
949:Chang, Tsao (2017).
93:Face selective cells
877:10.1038/nature03687
869:2005Natur.435.1102Q
863:(7045): 1102–1107.
770:10.1038/nn0909-1083
456:Scientific American
399:(7045): 1036–1037.
74:Portnoy's Complaint
744:Abstr Soc Neurosci
558:10.1007/bf00279674
502:10.1007/bf00239352
319:Konorski J. 1967.
238:Gross, CG (2002).
1060:Cognitive science
1023:978-0-262-68094-3
589:Annu Rev Neurosci
475:Gross CG. 1998a.
306:978-0-19-823851-5
1067:
1037:
1034:
1028:
1027:
1007:
997:
991:
990:
980:
970:
961:(6): 1013–1028.
946:
940:
939:
903:
897:
896:
848:
839:
838:
828:
796:
790:
789:
753:
747:
736:
730:
729:
693:
687:
686:
650:
644:
639:Tanaka K. 1996.
637:
631:
630:
612:
584:
578:
577:
541:
535:
530:Rolls ET. 1984.
528:
522:
521:
485:
479:
473:
467:
466:
464:
462:
447:
441:
440:
428:
419:
418:
408:
406:10.1038/4351036a
384:
373:
372:
362:
330:
324:
317:
311:
310:
292:
286:
285:
283:
277:. Archived from
244:
235:
193:Pontifical cells
138:. A neuron for
136:Jennifer Aniston
25:Jennifer Aniston
21:grandmother cell
1075:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1045:
1044:
1042:
1040:
1035:
1031:
1024:
999:
998:
994:
948:
947:
943:
905:
904:
900:
850:
849:
842:
817:10.1038/nn.2363
798:
797:
793:
755:
754:
750:
737:
733:
695:
694:
690:
652:
651:
647:
638:
634:
586:
585:
581:
543:
542:
538:
529:
525:
487:
486:
482:
474:
470:
460:
458:
449:
448:
444:
430:
429:
422:
386:
385:
376:
332:
331:
327:
318:
314:
307:
294:
293:
289:
281:
242:
237:
236:
211:
207:
195:
186:binding problem
160:
144:abstract entity
120:
95:
90:
57:
34:ensemble coding
17:
12:
11:
5:
1073:
1071:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1047:
1046:
1039:
1038:
1029:
1022:
992:
941:
898:
840:
811:(9): 1187–96.
791:
748:
731:
688:
645:
632:
579:
536:
523:
480:
468:
442:
420:
374:
325:
312:
305:
287:
284:on 2012-02-08.
253:(5): 512–518.
247:Neuroscientist
208:
206:
203:
194:
191:
190:
189:
177:
159:
156:
119:
116:
94:
91:
89:
86:
56:
53:
49:Jerzy Konorski
45:gnostic neuron
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1072:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1055:Neural coding
1053:
1052:
1050:
1043:
1033:
1030:
1025:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1005:
996:
993:
988:
984:
979:
974:
969:
964:
960:
956:
952:
945:
942:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
902:
899:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
847:
845:
841:
836:
832:
827:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
795:
792:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:(9): 1083–5.
763:
759:
752:
749:
745:
741:
735:
732:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:10.1038/78868
707:
704:(9): 946–53.
703:
699:
692:
689:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:10.1038/78745
664:
660:
656:
649:
646:
642:
636:
633:
628:
624:
620:
616:
611:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
583:
580:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:(1): 209–14.
551:
547:
546:Exp Brain Res
540:
537:
533:
527:
524:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:(3): 329–42.
495:
491:
490:Exp Brain Res
484:
481:
478:
472:
469:
457:
453:
446:
443:
438:
434:
427:
425:
421:
416:
412:
407:
402:
398:
394:
390:
383:
381:
379:
375:
370:
366:
361:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
329:
326:
322:
316:
313:
308:
302:
298:
291:
288:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
241:
234:
232:
230:
228:
226:
224:
222:
220:
218:
216:
214:
210:
204:
202:
199:
198:William James
192:
187:
183:
178:
176:
172:
171:
170:
167:
165:
157:
155:
151:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
117:
115:
111:
107:
105:
100:
92:
87:
85:
82:
77:
75:
71:
65:
62:
61:Horace Barlow
54:
52:
50:
46:
42:
41:Jerry Lettvin
37:
35:
30:
26:
22:
1041:
1032:
1003:
995:
958:
954:
944:
914:(3): 87–91.
911:
907:
901:
860:
856:
808:
805:Nat Neurosci
804:
794:
761:
758:Nat Neurosci
757:
751:
743:
739:
734:
701:
698:Nat Neurosci
697:
691:
661:(9): 855–6.
658:
655:Nat Neurosci
654:
648:
640:
635:
592:
588:
582:
549:
545:
539:
531:
526:
493:
489:
483:
476:
471:
459:. Retrieved
455:
445:
436:
396:
392:
342:
338:
328:
320:
315:
296:
290:
279:the original
250:
246:
196:
181:
174:
168:
161:
152:
132:Bill Clinton
121:
112:
108:
96:
78:
66:
58:
44:
38:
20:
18:
1012:. pp.
595:: 577–621.
140:Halle Berry
122:In 2005, a
104:hippocampus
1049:Categories
205:References
164:sparseness
148:sparseness
1010:MIT Press
461:March 23,
345:: 69–88.
339:J Physiol
81:Ed Connor
79:By 2005,
59:In 1953,
987:28575666
928:18262826
885:15973409
835:19668199
786:35004301
778:19710647
726:14961891
718:10966627
683:33297852
675:10966610
627:14848254
415:15973389
369:13035718
267:12374433
978:8088389
936:9383450
893:1234637
865:Bibcode
826:2819705
619:8833455
574:9851398
566:3208858
510:7128705
360:1393035
275:8436406
128:Caltech
88:Support
55:History
1020:
985:
975:
934:
926:
891:
883:
857:Nature
833:
823:
784:
776:
724:
716:
681:
673:
625:
617:
572:
564:
518:572908
516:
508:
413:
393:Nature
367:
357:
323:(1967)
303:
273:
265:
70:ablate
29:neuron
1016:–58.
932:S2CID
889:S2CID
782:S2CID
722:S2CID
679:S2CID
623:S2CID
570:S2CID
514:S2CID
282:(PDF)
271:S2CID
243:(PDF)
1018:ISBN
983:PMID
955:Cell
924:PMID
881:PMID
831:PMID
774:PMID
714:PMID
671:PMID
615:PMID
562:PMID
506:PMID
463:2023
411:PMID
365:PMID
301:ISBN
263:PMID
182:etc.
175:etc.
126:and
124:UCLA
19:The
973:PMC
963:doi
959:169
916:doi
873:doi
861:435
821:PMC
813:doi
766:doi
706:doi
663:doi
605:hdl
597:doi
554:doi
498:doi
437:NPR
401:doi
397:435
355:PMC
347:doi
343:119
255:doi
134:or
1051::
1014:49
1008:.
981:.
971:.
957:.
953:.
930:.
922:.
912:12
910:.
887:.
879:.
871:.
859:.
855:.
843:^
829:.
819:.
809:12
807:.
803:.
780:.
772:.
762:12
760:.
746:27
742:.
720:.
712:.
700:.
677:.
669:.
657:.
621:.
613:.
603:.
593:19
591:.
568:.
560:.
550:73
548:.
512:.
504:.
494:47
492:.
454:.
435:.
423:^
409:.
395:.
391:.
377:^
363:.
353:.
341:.
337:.
269:.
261:.
249:.
245:.
212:^
1026:.
989:.
965::
938:.
918::
895:.
875::
867::
837:.
815::
788:.
768::
728:.
708::
702:3
685:.
665::
659:3
629:.
607::
599::
576:.
556::
520:.
500::
465:.
439:.
417:.
403::
371:.
349::
309:.
257::
251:8
188:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.