A comparison of primate prefrontal and inferior temporal cortices during visual categorizat

A Comparison of Primate Prefrontal and Inferior Temporal Cortices during Visual Categorization

David J.Freedman,1,2,5Maximilian Riesenhuber,3,4,5Tomaso Poggio,3,4,5and Earl https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3e17698261.html,ler1,2,5

1The Picower Center for Learning and Memory,2RIKEN-MIT Neuroscience Research Center,3Center for Biological and Computational Learning,and

4McGovern Institute for Brain Research,5Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences,Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, Massachusetts02139

Previous studies have suggested that both the prefrontal cortex(PFC)and inferior temporal cortex(ITC)are involved in high-level visual processing and categorization,but their respective roles are not known.To address this,we trained monkeys to categorize a continuous set of visual stimuli into two categories,“cats”and“dogs.”The stimuli were parametrically generated using a computer graphics morphing system(Shelton,2000)that allowed precise control over stimulus shape.After training,we recorded neural activity from the PFC and the ITC of monkeys while they performed a category-matching task.We found that the PFC and the ITC play distinct roles in category-based behaviors:the ITC seems more involved in the analysis of currently viewed shapes,whereas the PFC showed stronger category signals,memory effects,and a greater tendency to encode information in terms of its behavioral meaning.

Key words:categorization;monkey;vision;object vision;inferior temporal cortex;prefrontal cortex;learning

Introduction

Comparing and contrasting the neural properties of different brain regions can yield important insight into their respective contributions and,hence,the neural circuitry underlying a given function.Take,for example,perceptual categorization,a process fundamental for normal cognition because it gives meaning to our sensory environment.Several recent studies have reported neuronal correlates of visual categories in two interconnected cortical areas involved in visual recognition,memory,and other visual functions:the inferior temporal cortex(ITC)and the pre-frontal cortex(PFC)(Vogels,1999;Freedman et al.,2001,2002; Nieder et al.,2002;Sigala and Logothetis,2002).However,the respective roles of these and other brain areas in categorization remain essentially unknown.The PFC and the ITC have been studied by different investigators using different behavioral par-adigms,different stimuli,etc.,which are confounding factors that render comparisons between them difficult at best.So we trained two monkeys to perform a category judgment task and directly compared neuronal activity in the ITC and the PFC.

As in a previous study that focused on the PFC,we used a continuous set of cat and dog stimuli(see Fig.1)constructed from six prototypes with a three-dimensional morphing system (Shelton,2000).By morphing different amounts of the proto-types,we could generate thousands of unique images,continu-ously vary stimulus shape,and precisely define a category bound-ary.The category of a stimulus was defined by whichever category contributed more(?50%)to a given morph.We used a behav-ioral paradigm that required monkeys to release a lever if two stimuli(separated by a1sec delay)were from the same category (a category match).Thus,the behavioral responses(release or hold)indicated“match”or“non-match,”respectively,and were not directly linked to category membership.This allowed us to attribute any neuronal signals related to the category of a stimulus to perceptual categorization because the behavioral responses did not differentiate between the categories.

We previously reported neurons that encoded the cat and dog categories in the lateral PFC(Freedman et al.,2001,2002).One possibility is that category representations are encoded“up-stream”from the PFC(i.e.,in areas closer to sensory input,such as the ITC)and then this information is merely copied to the PFC via direct interconnections between it and the ITC(Ungerleider et al.,1989;Webster et al.,1994).ITC neurons,after all,seem to have properties appropriate for a role in visual categorization. They are selectively activated by complex visual stimuli(Gross, 1973;Bruce et al.,1981;Perrett et al.,1982;Desimone et al.,1984; Logothetis and Sheinberg,1996;Tanaka,1996),influenced by visual experience(Miyashita,1988;Logothetis et al.,1995;Booth and Rolls,1998;Kobatake et al.,1998;Baker et al.,2002),and sensitive to diagnostic features of categories(Sigala and Logoth-etis,2002).Thus,neuronal category selectivity might be similar between the two areas or even stronger in the ITC than the PFC. Alternatively,the PFC may play a more active role in categoriza-tion.One model of visual recognition(Riesenhuber and Poggio, 2000)suggests that the PFC further enhances the behaviorally relevant aspects of the information that it receives from the ITC. PFC neuronal activity does emphasize behaviorally relevant in-formation(Rainer et al.,1998),and categories are typically de-fined by their functionality.This predicts a stronger representa-tion of category in the PFC than ITC.Other questions concern the mechanisms that guide category-based behaviors,such as those involved in behavioral decisions.Neuronal correlates of the

Received Jan.28,2002;revised March21,2003;accepted March27,2003.

ThisworkwassupportedbyNationalInstituteofMentalHealthGrantMH22588,aNationalScienceFoundation–

Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence grant,the RIKEN-MIT Neuroscience Research Center,and a McDonnell Pew

awardincognitiveneuroscience(M.R.).AdditionalsupportwasprovidedbytheEugeneMcDermottFoundationand

the Whitaker Foundation(T.P.).We thank C.Shelton for the morphing software and K.Anderson,W.Asaad,M.

Machon,A.Nieder,A.Pasupathy,J.Wallis,and M.Wicherski for valuable comments,help,and discussions,and Ulf

Knoblich for performing the model simulations and creating Figure7.

Correspondence should be addressed to David J.Freedman,Building E25,Room236,Massachusetts Institute of

Technology,Cambridge,MA02139.E-mail:davidf@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3e17698261.html,.

Copyright?2003Society for Neuroscience0270-6474/03/235235-12$15.00/0

The Journal of Neuroscience,June15,2003?23(12):5235–5246?5235

match/non-match status of stimuli have been reported in the PFC and the ITC dur-ing identity judgments (Miller et al.,1996),but these areas have not been com-pared during category judgments.We ad-dress these questions here.

Materials and Methods

Subjects .Two female adult rhesus monkeys (Macacca mulatta )weighing 6.0and 7.5kg were used in this https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3e17698261.html,ing previously described methods (Miller et al.,1993),they were im-planted with recording hardware.Eye move-ments were monitored and stored using an in-frared eye tracking system (Iscan,Cambridge,MA)at a sampling rate of 120Hz.All surgeries were performed under sterile conditions while the animals were anesthetized with isoflurane.The animals received postoperative antibiotics and analgesics and were handled in accord with National Institutes of Health guidelines and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Com-mittee on Animal Care.

Stimuli and task .A large continuous set of im-ages was generated from three cat prototypes and three dog prototypes (Fig.1)using a novel algo-rithm (Shelton,2000;Freedman et al.,2001,2002).It found corresponding points between one of the prototypes and the others and then computed their differences as vectors.Morphs were created by linear combinations of these vec-tors added to that prototype.For more infor-mation see https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3e17698261.html,/projects/cbcl/morph.By morphing different amounts of the

prototypes we could generate thousands of unique images,continuously vary shape,and pre-cisely define a category boundary.The category of a stimulus was defined by whichever category contributed more (?50%)to a given morph.The stimuli differed along multiple feature dimen-sions and were smoothly morphed,i.e.,without the sudden appearance or

disappearance of any feature.They were 4.2°in diameter,had identical color,

shading,orientation,and scale and were presented at the center of gaze.

We trained monkeys to perform a delayed match-to-category task

(DMC)(Fig.2).The monkeys viewed two stimuli that were separated by

a brief delay.They were trained to indicate (by releasing a lever)whether

the second (test)stimulus was from the same category as a previously

seen (sample)stimulus.Thus,monkeys learned to group a continuous

set of stimuli into discrete categories.Performance was high (?90%

correct)even when the sample stimuli were close to the category bound-ary and therefore strongly resembled stimuli from the other category.

Note that by using this task design,the monkey ’s responses (release or

hold)indicated match or non-match,and neither was uniquely associ-ated with either category.Furthermore,an equal proportion of match

and non-match trials were presented in a pseudorandom order,and the

monkeys could not predict whether a trial would be a match or non-match trial until the test stimulus appeared.Therefore,any neuronal

signals related to stimulus category must be related to perceptual catego-rization and not the motor responses because the responses did not

differentiate between the categories.Of course,because the motor re-sponse (lever release)always indicated match,any neuronal signals dur-ing the test epoch that differentiated between match and non-match

could be related to the monkeys ’decision-making process or preparation

for motor responses,or both.

During recordings,we used 54stimuli as samples,each belonging to

one of six levels of cat/dog blends (cat/dog)(100:0,80:20,60:40,40:60,

20:80,0:100)along the nine morph lines that crossed the category

boundary and two levels along the six within-category morph lines (60:

40,40:60)(Fig.1a ).Before recordings,monkeys were trained with thou-sands of randomly generated cat and dog stimuli that covered the vast majority of possible morphs using all combinations of the six prototypes.Thus,monkeys were not trained to simply memorize the 54sample stimuli used during neuronal recordings.To prevent monkeys from memorizing specific stimulus –response contingencies during the re-cording experiments,the test stimuli were 100randomly generated morphs from each category that were randomly paired with sample stim-uli of the appropriate category.The set of test stimuli was frequently regenerated to further discourage monkeys from learning associations between specific sample and test images.The test stimuli unambiguously belonged to a given category:they were always chosen to be at a distance of at least 20%from the boundary.Behavioral and recording methods .Monkeys typically performed ?10correct repetitions for each of the 54unique sample stimuli.Eye move-ments were monitored and stored using an infrared eye tracking system (ISCAN,Cambridge,MA),and monkeys were required to maintain gaze within a ?2°fixation window.Breaks of fixation were not included when computing error rates.PFC recording chambers were placed stereotaxically over the principal sulcus and anterior to the arcuate sulcus using structural magnetic reso-nance imaging (MRI)scans acquired before surgery.PFC recordings were obtained primarily from the areas ventral to the principal sulcus (areas 45,46,and 12).ITC recordings were conducted between anterior-posterior ?14–20mm and lateral ?15–21mm (Fig.3).ITC recording locations,as determined by stereotaxic coordinates,MRI scans,and white –gray matter transitions encountered during electrode penetra-tions were in areas TEa,TEm,TE2,and TE1(Paxinos et al.,2000).

The Figure https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3e17698261.html,anization of stimulus set.A ,The 6prototype images and 15morph lines.The sample stimulus set was composed of 54unique images:6prototypes (as shown),4images evenly placed (20,40,60,and 80%)along the nine lines connecting each cat to each dog prototype,and 2images (at 40and 60%)along each of the six lines between prototypes of the same category.B ,An example of the morphs generated between the C1and D1prototypes.5236?J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization

locations of ITC recordings were similar to those reported in studies by

several laboratories (Logothetis et al.,1995;Booth and Rolls,1998;Ko-batake et al.,1998;Baker et al.,2002).No attempt was made to prescreen

neurons for task-related activity such as stimulus or category selectivity.

Neuronal waveforms were amplified,digitized,and stored for off-line

sorting into individual neuron records using principal components anal-ysis clustering software (Plexon Inc.,Dallas,TX).

Data analysis .For the analysis of neural activity related to the sample stimulus,average neuronal activity was calcu-lated in four time epochs:baseline,sample pre-sentation,delay,and test stimulus epochs.Base-line activity was averaged over the 500msec of fixation preceding sample presentation.Sample period activity was averaged over a 600msec epoch beginning 100msec after sample onset.Delay activity was assessed over an 800msec epoch beginning 300msec after sample offset and ending 100msec after test stimulus onset.After the memory delay,a test stimulus ap-peared,and the monkey had to decide whether it matched the category of the previously pre-sented sample stimulus.Therefore,the monkey needed to maintain information about the pre-viously presented sample stimulus in short-term memory.To analyze signals related to the previously presented sample stimulus during the test epoch,neuronal activity was averaged over an epoch beginning at the onset of the test stimulus and ending 2SDs before the monkeys ’average reaction time (RT)during each recording session to exclude any effects related to the execu-tion of the behavioral response (monkey A:mean

RT:242msec,mean test epoch duration:183msec;monkey B:mean RT:321msec,mean test epoch duration:254msec).

During the test epoch,the monkey also needed to represent the category of the currently visible test stimulus and whether it was a categorical match to the sample stimulus.To analyze category selectivity for the currently visible test stimulus and match/non-match effects,neuronal activity was averaged over an epoch that began 100msec after test stimulus onset (to account for the latency of the visual response in PFC and ITC)and ended 2SDs before the monkeys ’average RT during each recording session to exclude any effects related to

the

Figure 2.Behavioral task.A sample stimulus (600msec)was followed by a 1sec delay and a test stimulus (600msec).If the sample and test were from the same category (a match),monkeys released a lever to receive a juice reward.If the test stimulus did not match the category of the sample,there was another brief delay that was always followed by a match.Because the monkeys’response indicated match and was not uniquely associated with either category,any differential neuronal responses to the two categories could not be related to the behavioral response.Performance of the monkeys was excellent (?90%correct)even for sample stimuli that were very close to the category boundary (e.g.,the 60%morphs)and resembled stimuli from the other category (Freedman et al.,

2002).

Figure 3.Location of ITC and PFC recordings.A ,The vertical dotted white lines superimposed on this structural MRI scan (from monkey B obtained just before recordings,14mm anterior to the intra-aural line)show the medial and lateral bounds of the ITC recording region.The horizontal dotted lines show the dorsal-ventral range.The arrows indicate the positions of the superior temporal sulcus (STS),rhinal fissure (RF),and anterior medial temporal sulcus (AMT).ITC recordings were concentrated in the lower bank of the STS (areas TEa,TEm)and the ventral surface of the inferior temporal cortex lateral to the AMT (area TE).ITC neurons were recorded between 14and 20mm anterior from the intra-aural line.The placement of the recording chambers and locationofITCrecordingswereidenticalforthetwomonkeys.B ,ThedorsalandventralboundsofthePFCrecordingsareindicated bythetwodottedwhitelinessuperimposedonthisMRIimage(frommonkeyB,20mmanteriortotheintra-auralline).Thearrows indicate the superior arcuate sulcus (SAR),principal sulcus (PS),and inferior arcuate sulcus (IAR).For a detailed description of recording locations,see Materials and Methods.

Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246?5237

execution of the behavioral response (monkey A:mean RT:242msec,mean test epoch duration:83msec;monkey B:mean RT:321msec,mean test epoch duration:154msec).

To determine the time course of neuronal activity,we computed nor-malized response histograms across the populations of PFC and ITC neurons that showed a significant difference in their activity to all cats versus all dogs (t test,p ?0.01)during the sample and/or delay epoch.To ensure that each neuron contributed equally to the population histo-gram,the activity of each neuron was normalized according to its mini-mum and maximum value (although qualitatively similar results were observed using the raw,non-normalized,firing rates).To determine the latency of neuronal responses,we first determined the mean and SD of each sample epoch category-selective neuron ’s average firing rate across the 5001msec time bins during the fixation period.The response latency of each neuron was then defined as the time at which the mean fixation period firing rate was exceeded by 3SDs for three consecutive time bins.To evaluate the strength of category tuning,an index was calculated using each neuron ’s average difference in activity to pairs of stimuli along the morph lines that crossed the category boundary.These included pairs of stimuli that were adjacent [within-category differences (WCDs):100vs 80%and 80vs 60%cat or dog;between-category differences (BCDs):60%cat vs 60%dog)and pairs that differed by “two steps ”(WCD:100vs 60%;BCD:80%cat vs 60%dog and vice versa)].Thus,the average morph distance between stimuli was identical for BCDs and WCDs.A standard contrast index was computed for each neuron by dividing the difference between BCDs and WCDs by their sum,giving values ranging from ?1to 1.Positive values of the category index indicated larger dif-ferences between categories (BCD)compared with within a category (WCD),whereas negative values indicate the opposite.

The time course of category selectivity was evaluated by a sliding re-ceiver operating characteristics (ROC)analysis (Freedman et al.,2002).This was computed by calculating an ROC value for the activity of each neuron to all trials with a cat sample versus all trials with a dog sample over a 200msec window that was stepped in 10msec intervals over the course of the trial.Qualitatively similar results were observed with ROC windows of various widths.The latency of category selectivity was deter-mined using similar methods as used to compute response latency,but using each neuron ’s sliding ROC values (rather than the average neuro-nal response as used for computing response latency).For each sample period category-selective neuron,we first determined the mean and SD of the sliding ROC values during the fixation period.The selectivity latency of each neuron was defined as the time at which the mean fixation period ROC value was exceeded by 3SDs for three consecutive time epochs.The time course of match/non-match selectivity during the test epoch was determined using similar methods.For each test epoch match/non-match selective neuron,a sliding ROC analysis (window width of 100msec)that compared all match trials versus all non-match trials was computed in consecutive 10msec steps.The latency of each neuron was defined as the point at which ROC values exceeded mean baseline levels (computed over the 500msec before test stimulus onset)by 3SDs for three consecutive time epochs.

Comparison of neuronal tuning to units from a hierarchical model of object recognition .To look at the contribution of shape versus category tuning in neuronal activity,we used the model of object recognition

in

Figure 4.Single neuron examples.A ,The average activity of a category-sensitive ITC neuron to the six levels of morphs.The dotted vertical lines correspond (from left to right)to sample onset,offset,and test stimulus onset.B ,A category-sensitive PFC neuron.The color plot below each histogram (C ,D )shows the average activity of each neuron to each of the 42stimuli along the nine between-class morph lines (Fig.1).The prototypes (C1,C2,C3,D1,D2,D3)are represented in the outermost columns,and the category boundary is represented by the blue line in the middle.Each prototype contributes to three morph lines.A color scale indicates the activity level.For the ITC neuron,activity was averaged over the first half of the sample epoch.For the color plot of the PFC neuron,activity was averaged across the delay and test epoch.This figure also shows each the category index for each neuron and ROC values for that epoch (see Results).The PFC neuron shows sharper between-category differences and less within-category variability than the ITC neuron.

5238?J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization

cortex of Riesenhuber and Poggio (1999,2000),shown schematically in Figure 7.It consists of a hierarchy of layers containing units performing template matching and units performing a MAX operation (i.e.,they select the maximum of a cell ’s inputs).A cascade of these two operations leads to C2units (roughly corresponding to neurons at the mid level of the cortical processing hierarchy,areas V4and/or the posterior ITC),which are tuned to complex features tolerant to changes in position and scale.The outputs of these units provide the inputs to the shape-tuned units (STUs),corresponding to view-tuned neurons in ITC (Logothetis et al.,1995;Booth and Rolls,1998).Importantly,the responses of a shape-tuned model unit are completely determined by the shape of the preferred stimulus of the unit,with no explicit influence of category information.

We performed simulations using a population of 144STUs,each tuned to a different stimulus from the cat/dog morph space (Knoblich et al.,2002).The 144morphed animal stimuli were a subset of the stimuli used to train the monkey [i.e.,chosen at random from the cat/dog morph space,excluding cats (dogs)with a dog (cat)component ?40%].This population of STUs was used to model a general stimulus representation consisting of neurons tuned to various shapes,which might then provide input to recognition task-specific neurons (such as for cat/dog categori-zation)in higher areas (Riesenhuber and Poggio,2000).Each STU had a tuning width of ??0.2and was connected to the 32C2afferents that were most strongly activated by its respective preferred stimulus,which produced neurons with realistic broadness of tuning.

We compared the tuning properties of model units with those of the ITC and the PFC neurons recorded from the two monkeys during the

cat/dog categorization task.For the comparison of model and experi-mental data,we restricted our analysis to the neurons that showed stim-ulus selectivity by an ANOVA (p ?0.01).Extension of the analysis to include all (responsive)neurons (relative to baseline,p ?0.01)added mainly untuned neurons with ROC area values close to 0.5.

Results

General properties

We recorded from a total of 968neurons during DMC task per-formance,525PFC neurons (260from monkey A,265from monkey B)and 443ITC neurons (157from monkey A,286from monkey B),from three hemispheres of two monkeys during 121recording sessions (Fig.3).Of these,130PFC and 117ITC neu-rons were collected during 21recording sessions with four to eight electrodes implanted simultaneously in both the PFC and the ITC of one monkey.Because the properties of neurons were similar between simultaneous versus single-area recording ses-sions and the two monkeys,we collapsed across them in report-ing our results.During recordings,the monkeys ’performance was ?90%correct,even for sample stimuli that were close to the category boundary (e.g.,the 60%morphs)and resembled stimuli from the other category (Freedman et al.,2002).

The activity of most of the neurons in both areas deviated from baseline rates during the sample presentation,memory de-lay,and/or test epoch (PFC:423of 525or 81%;ITC:345of 443or 78%;t test,p ?0.01;?2test,PFC vs ITC;p ?0.1).We identified neurons that were stimulus selective (but not necessarily category selective)by using a one-way ANOVA with the 54sample stimuli as a factor (at p ?0.01)on their average activity across the sample epoch and across the delay epoch.During the sample presenta-tion,fewer PFC neurons (102of 525or 19%)than ITC neurons (213of 443or 48%)were stimulus selective (but not necessarily category selective)(?2test,p ?0.001).By contrast,the opposite was true during the delay;the incidence of stimulus selectivity was greater in the PFC (58of 525or 11%)than ITC (29of 443or 7%;?2test,p ?0.05).A similar pattern of results was obtained for neurons that were “category sensitive ”(defined as those that showed a difference activity to all cat versus all dog samples;t test at p ?0.01).During the sample epoch,more ITC (119of 443or 27%)than PFC neurons (90of 525or 17%)were category sensi-tive (?2test,p ?0.001),whereas the opposite was true during the delay epoch (39of 443or 9%of ITC neurons and 94of 525or 18%PFC neurons;?2test,p ?0.001).

When the test stimulus was presented,monkeys needed to judge whether it was the same category as the sample.We found a greater incidence of ITC neurons (113of 443or 26%)than PFC neurons (57of 525or 11%)that showed an overall difference in activity to all test stimulus cats versus all dogs (t test,p ?0.01;?2test,p ?0.001).Neural activity during the test epoch also re-flected the previously seen sample.There was a greater incidence of neurons in the PFC (n ?81/525or 15%)than ITC (n ?48of 443or 11%;?2test,p ?0.05)that showed a difference in test epoch activity for all sample cats versus all dogs (t test,p ?0.01).During this epoch,a few neurons in each area (PFC:33of 525or 6%;ITC:19of 443or 4%)were stimulus selective for the sample (one-way ANOVA with the 54sample stimuli as the factor;p ?0.01).We did not analyze stimulus selectivity for the test stimuli because they were a large number of randomly generated morphs (see Materials and Methods).

Comparison of the strength of category effects across areas Figure 4shows the activity of a PFC and an ITC neuron to stimuli as a function of distance from the category boundary.Both

neu-

Figure 5.Neuronal responses to individual sample stimuli.These six color plots show the average activity of three ITC (a –c )and three PFC (d –f )neurons to stimuli along each of the nine between-class morph lines (Fig.1).Conventions are the same as the color plots in Figure 4.The category index of each neuron and ROC values are indicated below each color plot.The plots are arranged into three columns.The columns,from left to right,show examples of neurons with selective activity during the sample,delay,and test epochs,respectively.These plots show the activity of six different neurons and not the activity of an individual neuron from each area across time.

Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246?5239

rons convey some information about stimulus category.In the sample epoch (Fig.4A )or the delay epoch (Fig.4B ),they showed different levels of activity to dogs versus cats,yet activity was similar to stimuli from the same category regardless of their de-gree of “dogness ”or “catness.”A more detailed account of neu-ronal activity is shown in the color tile plots of Figures 4C ,D and 5.Each tile shows the activity of a single neuron to each of the 42sample stimuli that lay along the nine morph lines that crossed the category boundary (the lines that connect each cat prototype to each dog prototype in Fig.1A ).The PFC neurons shown in Figures 4and 5showed stronger category effects than the ITC neurons shown in Figures 4and 5.As we will see below,these neurons are representative of their respective populations.The

PFC neurons showed sharper between-category differences and lower within-category variance,an observation confirmed by computing a category-tuning index and ROC values (see below and Figs.4,5).

To evaluate the strength of category effects,we computed a standard index that compared each neuron ’s difference in activ-ity between pairs of sample stimuli from different categories with its difference for pairs of sample stimuli from the same category (see Materials and Methods).Positive values indicate greater dif-ferences to samples between than within categories (i.e.,stronger category effects),whereas negative values mean the opposite.We applied this analysis separately to each neuron and each epoch.We used all neurons that showed a significant difference in activ-ity to all sample cats versus all dogs (t test at p ?0.01;sample epoch:119ITC and 90PFC neurons;delay epoch:39ITC and 94PFC neurons).For both the PFC and the ITC,the distribution of the index values was shifted significantly positive for the sample epoch (PFC:mean index value ?0.105,t test versus a mean of zero:p ?2.8?10?10;ITC:mean index value ?0.062,t test:p ?4.6?10?7)and delay epoch (PFC:mean index value ?0.136,t test:p ?1.0?10?11;ITC:mean index value 0.081,t test:p ?2.6?10?6).However,the PFC distribution showed a stronger positive shift (i.e.,category effect)than the ITC distribution for both the sample epoch (PFC mean index ?0.105;ITC mean ?0.062)and delay epoch (PFC mean index ?0.136;ITC mean ?0.081)that was significant at the p ?0.05level (t test,sample epoch:p ?0.023;delay epoch:p ?0.018).

We next applied the same analysis to the entire population of neurons that showed any stimulus selectivity (one-way ANOVA with the 54samples as a factor at p ?0.01;sample epoch:102PFC and 213ITC neurons;delay epoch:58PFC and 29ITC neurons).This revealed the same pattern of results.For both areas,

the

Figure 6.Distribution of PFC and ITC category indices for neurons that were stimulus selective during sample [PFC:n ?102,(a );ITC:n ?213(b )],delay [PFC:n ?58(c );ITC:n ?29(d )],and test epochs [PFC:n ?33(e );ITC:n ?19(f )].Indices were computed for stimulus-selective neurons separately for each epoch.Positive category index values indicate larger differences in activity to samples from different categories than from the same category.Negative values indicate larger differences to samples from the same category than between categories.Table 1.Strength of the category-tuning index in PFC and ITC during sample,delay,and test epochs

PFC

ITC

Number of stimulus-selective neurons (sample)102of 525(19%)213of 443(48%)Category index value (mean)0.0720.025t test on index value,PFC versus ITC p ?0.002Number of stimulus-selective neurons (delay)58of 525(11%)29of 443(7%)Category index value (mean)0.1410.047t test on index value,PFC versus ITC p ?0.003Number of stimulus-selective neurons (test)33of 525(6%)19of 443(4%)Category index value (mean)0.2170.161

t test on index value,PFC versus ITC p ?0.238One-way ANOVA p value

Sample versus delay versus test indices:p ?1.6?10?5p ?2.8?10?5Student–Newman–Keuls test for homogeneous subsets (p ?0.05):

Test ?delay Test ?delay Test ?sample Test ?sample Delay ?sample

Sample ?delay

5240?J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization

mean of the category index distribution was significantly above zero for the sample epoch (PFC:mean index ?0.072,t test versus a mean of zero:p ?6.2?10?6;ITC:mean index ?0.025,t test,p ?0.0028)and the delay epoch (PFC:mean index ?0.141,2.9?10?9;ITC:mean index ?0.047,p ?0.0085).Once again,the PFC index values showed a stronger positive shift than the ITC index values for the sample epoch (PFC mean index ?0.072;ITC ?0.025;t test,p ?0.002)and delay epoch (PFC mean index ?0.141;ITC mean index ?0.047;t test,p ?0.003).Thus,it seems that category effects are generally stronger in the PFC than ITC.

To solve this task,the monkeys needed to compare the test stimulus category with the memory of the sample ’s category.To analyze category tuning (for the sample stimulus)during the test

stimulus epoch,we computed the category index for neurons that were significantly sample-stimulus selective during the test epoch (one-way ANOVA with the 54sample stimuli as a factor;p ?0.01).Category index values were not computed for the test stim-ulus category because they were a large set of randomly generated morphs (see Materials and Methods).We used activity up to,but not including,the behavioral response (see Materials and Meth-ods).The sample category indices for the test epoch were again shifted toward positive values for both the PFC (n ?33neurons;index ?0.217;t test,p ?2.0?10?8)and ITC neurons (n ?19neurons;index ?0.161;t test,p ?2.4?10?4).During the test epoch,the PFC and the ITC category index distributions were not significantly different from one another (t test,p ?0.24).Figure 6shows distributions of the sample category index values for all stimulus-selective neurons during the sample (a ,b ),delay (c ,d ),and test (e ,f )epochs.

We also compared the sample category index values across the three epochs.We used the index values for the neurons that were stimulus selective during the corresponding epoch (shown in Fig.8and discussed above).Mean index values as well as results from a one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests (Student –Newman –Keuls at p ?0.05)are shown in Table 1.They indicated the following pattern of results.In both the PFC and the ITC,the effect of the sample category was higher in the test epoch than during the sample or delay,and in the PFC,category tuning was stronger during the delay than the sample epoch.A similar pattern of results was obtained with a detailed analysis of the time course of category signals.This will be discussed below.

Comparison between neurons and model units

In principle,highly selective responses to individual stimuli could produce positive category index values.Thus,we needed to know how the results obtained above compare with that expected from stimulus selectivity alone.So,we calculated the category index using 144units from a computational model of object recogni-tion (Riesenhuber and Poggio,1999;Knoblich and Freedman,2002)(Fig.7)that were trained to be selective for individual shapes but not carry any explicit category information.The mean index value from the model STUs was 0.03,a value that did not significantly differ from that obtained from the ITC stimulus-selective neurons [sample epoch:n ?213ITC neurons,mean index value ?0.025(Fig.6D );t test vs STU,p ?0.61;delay epoch:n ?29ITC neurons,mean index value ?0.047(Fig.6E );t test vs STU,p ?0.39).During the test epoch,however,sample category index values from the 19sample stimulus-selective ITC neurons were significantly greater than the STU values [ITC mean index value ?0.161(Fig.6F );t test vs STU,p ?1.7?10?5].This suggests that through most of the trial,the influence of category in the ITC neural population is not different from that expected from a population of stimulus-selective (and not category-selective)neurons.

By contrast,the comparison between the STU and PFC neu-rons suggested that the PFC neuronal population showed an in-fluence of sample category throughout the trial.Category index values for stimulus-selective PFC neurons were shifted more pos-itively than the STU values for the sample epoch [n ?102PFC neurons;mean index value ?0.072(Fig.6A );t test vs STU,p ?5.2?10?4],delay epoch [n ?58PFC neurons;mean index value ?0.141(Fig.6B );t test vs STU,p ?2.7?10?8],and test epoch (n ?33PFC neurons;mean index value ?0.217(Fig.6C );t test vs STU,p ?1.8?10?12

].

Figure 7.This figure shows a model of the recognition architecture in cortex (Riesenhuber and Poggio,1999)that combines and extends several recent models (Fukushima,1980;Perrett and Oram,1993;Wallis and Rolls,1997)and effectively summarizes many experimental find-ings(forreview,seeRiesenhuberandPoggio,2002).Itisahierarchicalextensionoftheclassical paradigm (Hubel and Wiesel,1962)of building complex cells from simple cells.The specific circuitry that we proposed consists of a hierarchy of layers with linear (“S”units,performing template matching,gray lines)and nonlinear units (“C”pooling units,performing a “MAX”operation,black lines,in which the response of the pooling neuron is determined by its maxi-mally activated afferent).These two types of operations provide,respectively,pattern specific-ity,bycombiningsimplefeaturestobuildmorecomplexones,andinvariance:totranslation,by pooling over afferents tuned to the same feature at different positions,and scale (data not shown),by pooling over afferents tuned to the same feature at different scales.Shape-tuned modelunits(STU)exhibittuningtocomplexshapesbutaretoleranttoscalingandtranslationof theirpreferredshape,likeview-tunedneuronsfoundinITC(cf.Logothetisetal.,1995).STUscan then serve as input to task modules located farther downstream,e.g.,in PFC,that perform different visual tasks such as object categorization.These modules consist of the same generic learning process but are trained to perform different tasks.For more information,see https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3e17698261.html,/projects/cbcl/hmax.

Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246?5241

Time course and latency of activity

Many of the results reported above were reflected in a detailed analysis of the time course of category effects.Figure 8shows a histogram of the average population activ-ity for the 141ITC (Fig.8A )and 156PFC (Fig.8B )neurons that showed a signifi-cant difference to all sample cats versus all dogs during the sample and/or delay ep-ochs (t test,p ?0.01).There are several noteworthy differences between PFC and the ITC average activity:ITC activity showed a sharper phasic burst at sample onset than PFC activity and during the de-lay,PFC average activity remained above baseline (fixation epoch)level,but ITC av-erage activity returned to baseline.

We examined the latencies of neuronal responses to onset of the sample stimulus using the population of ITC and PFC neu-rons that showed a difference to all cats versus all dogs during the sample epoch (t test,p ?0.01;ITC,n ?119neurons;PFC,n ?90neurons).For each neuron,we cal-culated the time at which neural activity began to depart from baseline levels (see

Materials and Methods).Distributions of these values are shown in Figure 8,C and D .On average,ITC neurons (mean la-tency ?103msec)began responding sooner than PFC neurons (mean latency ?

196msec;Wilcoxon rank sum test,p ?4.4?10?4).

This difference in response latency between the areas can also

be seen in the population average histograms shown in Figure 8,A and B .We calculated the latency for this average activity to begin to depart from baseline by determining the time bin at which it exceeded 3SDs of the variability across the baseline time bins (see Materials and Methods)for three consecutive 1msec bins.This occurred at 88msec for the ITC population histogram and 124msec for the PFC histogram.Next,we examined the time course of category-related signals by using a sliding ROC analysis.For each neuron,we calculated ROC values of the difference in activity to all cat samples versus all dog samples at 10msec time steps (Green and Swets,1966;Tolhurst et al.,1983;Freedman et al.,2002)(see Materials and Methods).Figure 9shows a plot of these values for all neurons that showed a significant difference to all cats versus all dogs in their average sample and delay epoch activity (t test,p ?0.01;156PFC neurons;141ITC neurons).In the ITC,(Fig.9A ),informa-tion about the sample category was relatively transient.ROC val-ues showed a sharp increase after sample onset and offset,but ITC values were relatively low during the memory delay,only to peak again at test stimulus onset.In the PFC,ROC values also showed a sharp increase after sample and test stimulus onset,but in contrast to the ITC,the PFC values remained elevated throughout the remainder of the trial (Fig.9B ).For each neuron,we calculated the latency for category signals to appear by determining at which time step its ROC values first rose above baseline levels (see Materials and Methods).Distribu-tions of the latencies are shown in Figure 9,C and D ,respectively.The mean latency values were 127msec for the ITC (Fig.9C )and 171msec for the PFC (Fig.9D ).The difference in these latency

values did not reach significance according to a Wilcoxon rank sum test (p ?0.13).Category match/non-match effects When the test stimulus appeared,the monkeys needed to judge whether its category matched that of the sample category.To discern whether the category match/non-match status of the test stimulus was reflected in neural activity,we computed,for each neuron,a two-way ANOVA on its average activity across the test stimulus epoch (i.e.,before the behavioral response;see Materials and Methods).The factors were the test stimulus match/non-match status and test stimulus category.The results are summa-rized in Table 2.A similar proportion of PFC and ITC neurons showed a sig-nificant effect of one or the other factor,or both (PFC:29%or 152of 525;ITC:34%or 151of 443;any main effect or a signifi-cant interaction,p ?0.01).However,the patterns of effects dif-fered between the areas.In the PFC,a relatively small proportion of neurons (20%or 31of 152)reflected the test stimulus category

(main effect,p ?0.01;with no interaction,p ?0.01).More PFC neurons reflected its match/non-match status:?32%(48of 152)of PFC neurons showed a main effect of match/non-match (with no interaction)and 51%(77of 152)showed a significant inter-action between category and match/non-match factors.Interac-tions reflect different effects of match/non-match between the categories or category selectivity for the sample stimulus.We have previously reported finding such effects in the PFC (Freed-man et al.,2002).By contrast,fewer ITC neurons showed cate-gory match/non-match effects (main effect with no interaction:7%or 10of 151,interaction:36%or 55of 151).Instead,the

modal group of ITC neurons (59%,n ?89of 151)reflected

the Figure 8.Average histogram of ITC and PFC neuronal activity.A ,The average normalized activity is shown for the population of 141category-sensitive ITC neurons (p ?0.01).B ,The average histogram across 156category-sensitive PFC neurons.C ,Distribution of neural response latencies to sample onset for 119ITC sample-epoch category-sensitive neurons.D ,Distribution of neural response latencies to sample onset for 90PFC sample-epoch category-sensitive neurons.5242?J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization

test stimulus category.The difference in proportion of PFC and ITC neurons showing match/non-match or category effects were both significant (?2test,p ?0.001).Examples of a PFC neuron that showed a match/non-match effect and an ITC neuron that reflected the test stimulus category are shown in Figure 10,A and B ,respectively.Thus,it seemed that during the test epoch,ITC

neurons were more involved in the visual analysis of the currently viewed (test)stimulus,whereas there was a stronger representa-tion of behavioral factors (match/non-match status and selection of the corresponding behavioral response)in the PFC.

In the PFC,match/non-match effects were evenly split be-tween neurons showing more activity to matches and neurons showing more activity to non-matches.Of the PFC neurons with match/non-matches effects (including those with a significant interaction),49%(39of 79)showed higher activity to matches than non-matches and 51%(40of 79)showed the opposite effect.Among match/non-match selective ITC neurons (including those that had a significant interaction),63%(12of 19)showed more activity to matches and 37%(7of 19)showed more activity to non-matches.These proportions were not significantly differ-ent from 0.5according to a binomial test (PFC:p ?0.999;ITC:p ?

0.359).

Figure9.Timecourseofcategorysensitivity.Theactivityof141category-sensitiveITC(A )and156category-sensitivePFC(B )neuronswascomputedusingaslidingROCanalysisat10msecsteps (see Materials and Methods).ROC values were sorted independently for each time bin.Higher ROC values indicate better discrimination between categories (0.5?no discrimination,1.0?perfect discrimination).The black lines correspond (from right to left)to sample onset,offset,and test stimulus onset.Time is aligned to the midpoint of the sliding window (i.e.,values at time ?0indicate theROCvaluesduringthe ?100to100msectimeepochrelativetosampleonset).C and D showthedistributionofthelatenciesforneuronstobegintodistinguishbetweencategories(ascomputed by ROC)for 119ITC (C )and 90PFC (D )neurons that were category sensitive during the sample epoch.

Table 2.Incidence of choice-period selectivity

PFC

ITC Number of neurons selective for:Match/non-match 48of 152(32%)10of 151(7%)Choice category 31of 152(20%)89of 151(59%)Match ?category

77of 152(51%)

55of 151(36%)

PFC:n ?152of 525have significant effect of either factor or interaction (p ?0.01);ITC:n ?151of 443have significant effect of either factor or interaction (p ?0.01).

Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246?5243

To examine the latency of match/non-match effects,we fo-cused on neurons that were match/non-match selective (main effect,no interaction)during the test epoch (see Materials and Methods and above;n ?48PFC;n ?10ITC).For each neuron,we computed a sliding ROC analysis (100msec width of analysis window,10msec steps)that compared activity on all match trials versus all non-match trials.An average histogram of sliding ROC values for the PFC and ITC is shown in Figure 11.For each neuron,the latency was defined as the point at which ROC values exceeded the mean ROC value before onset of the test stimulus by 3SDs for three consecutive time epochs (see Materials and Meth-ods).The mean latencies for the PFC (130msec)and ITC (140msec)were not significantly different from one another (Wilcox-on rank sum test,p ?0.718).

Discussion

We trained monkeys to perform a visual categorization task and found that neurons in the PFC and the ITC shared many prop-erties but also exhibited differences that may provide insight into their respective roles.Behaviorally relevant factors such as stim-ulus category and match/non-match status (or response selec-tion)were encoded more strongly in the PFC than the ITC.Fur-thermore,the time course of effects also suggested that the ITC was more involved in rapid visual analysis.Category-related sig-nals peaked in the ITC around the time a stimulus was being viewed,whereas the PFC showed more robust maintenance of category-related signals across a memory delay.Simply put,the PFC seems more “behavioral,”whereas the ITC seems more “vi-sual.”We elaborate below.

First and foremost,category effects tended to be stronger in the PFC than the ITC.In fact,except for activity near the end of the trial (during the test stimulus epoch),the distribution of cat-egory effects across the population of stimulus-selective ITC neu-rons did not differ from that obtained from stimulus-selective model units that conveyed no category information per se.By contrast,the distribution of category effects for PFC neurons was significantly greater than that of the model units and ITC neu-rons.This does not mean that category membership was not reflected in any ITC neurons;a few ITC neurons did show strong category effects,particularly during the test epoch.However,our results indicate that during most of the trial,there was a stronger and more explicit representation of visual category in the PFC than ITC.

This presumably reflects a greater emphasis on analysis of features of individual stimuli in the ITC versus the PFC.Such a role for the ITC during categorization was recently suggested by a study by Sigala and colleagues (2002).In that study,monkeys grouped face or fish stimuli into two categories on the basis of several “diagnostic features ”(such as the distance between the eyes and the height of the eyes on the face)that were relevant for categorization.After training,ITC neurons showed enhanced se-lectivity for the diagnostic features relative to other stimulus

fea-

Figure 10.Activity of a single PFC (A )and ITC (B )neuron during the test epoch.Neuronal activity is grouped according to the category of the test stimulus and whether the category of the test stimulus matched the category of the sample.A ,A PFC neuron that showed a match/non-match effect;it responded preferentially to when the test stimulus did not match the samplecategory.B ,Anexampleofacategory-sensitiveITCneuronthatshowedmoreactivityto both the sample and test stimuli when they were dogs as opposed to

cats.

Figure 11.Time course of match/non-match selectivity.The results of a sliding ROC analysis that compared activity on all match trials versus all non-match trials.This figure shows the average ROC values for 48PFC (solid line)and 10ITC (dotted line)neurons that showed a match/non-match effect (see Table 2and Materials and Methods).The average latencies of match/non-match selectivity in the PFC (130msec)and ITC (140msec)were not significantly different from one another.

5244?J.Neurosci.,June 15,2003?23(12):5235–5246Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization

tures that were unrelated to category membership.This,along with our results,suggests that although the emphasis of diagnos-tic features may occur in the ITC,the process of combining those features into an explicit representation of category occurs more at the level of the PFC than the ITC.Of course,this does not mean that the PFC is never sensitive to individual stimuli;PFC neurons can be highly sensitive to small changes in stimuli in both visual tasks and non-visual tasks,particularly when such fine details are task relevant(Romo et al.,1999;Rainer and Miller,2000).

We also found more robust maintenance of category signals across the memory delay in the PFC than the ITC.In fact,across the ITC population,average activity during the memory delay returned to baseline levels,whereas it remained above baseline in the PFC.This observation of more robust working memory-related activity in the PFC versus ITC is consistent with previous studies(Miller et al.,1996).Interestingly,the strength of sample category-related signals peaked in the PFC after the memory de-lay,during test stimulus presentation.At around the same time, category-related signals reappeared and peaked in the ITC after having essentially disappeared during the memory delay(Fig.9) (ROC analysis).Thus,the reappearance of category-related sig-nals in the ITC might reflect a“top-down”feedback from the PFC,where category information was being held in working memory.This is consistent with a demonstration by Tomita et al. (1999)of the importance of feedback from the PFC to the ITC during a visual recall task.

The notion that the PFC is more involved in encoding stimuli in terms of behavioral relevance is further supported by our ob-servation of a greater incidence of match/non-match effects in the PFC than the ITC.These effects could reflect the process of evaluating the match/non-match status of stimuli or the selection of the corresponding behavioral response(hold versus release). Previous studies of the ITC during an identity(not category) match-to-sample task that used the same behavioral response found a greater incidence of ITC match/non-match effects than is reported here(Miller et al.,1991;Miller and Desimone,1994).It may be that identity matching engages more ITC mechanisms than category matching;category matching may depend more on PFC mechanisms because the PFC has a more explicit represen-tation of category than the ITC.Our results are also compatible with that of Romo and colleagues(Hernandez et al.,2000,2002; Romo et al.,2002;Romo and Salinas,2003),who have compared neuronal activity in different cortical areas while monkeys per-formed a tactile discrimination task.They found that higher-order association cortex plays a greater role in decision-making and motor planning,whereas primary and secondary somatosen-sory cortices show a greater emphasis on the perceptual aspects of the task.

The presence of robust category and behavioral signals in the PFC task fits well with its putative role in guiding goal-directed behaviors(Grafman,1994;Duncan,1996;Miller,2000;Miller and Cohen,2001)and its emphasis on task-relevant information (Rainer et al.,1998)and in the representation of the behavioral context of stimuli(White and Wise,1999;Asaad et al.,2000). Categories are defined by their functional relevance and thus might be expected to be strongly represented in the PFC,a brain area that is thought to mediate the functions needed to transform sensory information into voluntary actions,such as the integra-tion of temporally separated events(Fuster,1990;Fuster et al., 2000),the acquisition and representation of behavior-guiding rules(Asaad et al.,1998;White and Wise,1999;Wallis et al., 2001),and visuomotor decisions(Bichot and Schall,1999;Kim and Shadlen,1999).The stronger representation of category in PFC activity is also consistent with theoretical models positing that categorization arises as appropriately weighted inputs from stimulus-selective ITC neurons converge on PFC neurons spe-cialized for encoding behaviorally relevant variables(Riesenhu-ber and Poggio,2000).Whether this division of labor is true for all visual categories(including those that are highly familiar and innate)(Kanwisher,2000)remains to be determined.It is worth noting,however,that this pattern of results is not likely to not be limited to just cats and dogs.It presumably extends to many complex visual stimuli.In previous work using these stimuli,we demonstrated that category effects in the PFC were acquired dur-ing training and therefore not dependent on an innate represen-tation of cat or dog(Freedman et al.,2001;Op de Beeck et al., 2001;Thomas et al.,2001).In principle,a similar division of labor may occur with any complex visual stimuli for which category membership must be learned.

In sum,our results suggest that the PFC and the ITC play overlapping but distinct roles in visual categorization.Although our discussion has emphasized their putative unique contribu-tions,it is important to stress in closing that many neurons in both areas were engaged by this task and differences between these areas is a matter of degree rather than a strict division of labor.Categorization is likely to depend on interactions between these and other structures.

References

Asaad WF,Rainer G,Miller EK(1998)Neural activity in the primate pre-frontal cortex during associative learning.Neuron21:1399–1407. Asaad WF,Rainer G,Miller EK(2000)Task-specific neural activity in the primate prefrontal cortex.J Neurophysiol84:451–459.

Baker CI,Behrmann M,Olson CR(2002)Impact of learning on represen-tation of parts and wholes in monkey inferotemporal cortex.Nat Neuro-sci5:1210–1215.

Bichot NP,Schall JD(1999)Effects of similarity and history on neural mechanisms of visual selection.Nat Neurosci2:549–554.

Booth MC,Rolls ET(1998)View-invariant representations of familiar ob-jects by neurons in the inferior temporal visual cortex.Cereb Cortex 8:510–523.

Bruce C,Desimone R,Gross CG(1981)Visual properties of neurons in a polysensory area in superior temporal sulcus in the macaque.J Neuro-physiol46:369–384.

Desimone R,Albright TD,Gross CG,Bruce C(1984)Stimulus-selective properties of inferior temporal neurons in the macaque.J Neurosci 4:2051–2062.

Duncan J(1996)Intelligence and the frontal lobe:the organization of goal-directed behavior.Cognit Psychol30:257–303.

Freedman DJ,Riesenhuber M,Poggio T,Miller EK(2001)Categorical rep-resentation of visual stimuli in the primate prefrontal cortex.Science 291:312–316.

Freedman DJ,Riesenhuber M,Poggio T,Miller EK(2002)Visual categori-zation and the primate prefrontal cortex:neurophysiology and Behavior.

J Neurophysiol88:914–928.

Fukushima K(1980)Neocognitron:a self organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position.

Biol Cybern36:193–202.

Fuster JM(1990)Prefrontal cortex and the bridging of temporal gaps in the perception-action cycle.Ann NY Acad Sci608:318–329.

Fuster JM,Bodner M,Kroger JK(2000)Cross-modal and cross-temporal association in neurons of frontal cortex.Nature405:347–351. Grafman J(1994)Alternative frameworks for the conceptualization of pre-frontal functions.In:Handbook of neuropsychology(Boller F,Grafman J,eds),pp187–200.Amsterdam:Elsevier.

Green DM,Swets JA(1966)Signal detection theory and psychophysics.

New York:Wiley.

Gross CG(1973)Visual functions of inferotemporal cortex.In:Handbook of sensory physiology,Vol VII/3B(Autrum H,Jung R,Lowenstein W, Mckay D,Teuber H-L,eds),pp451–482.Berlin:Springer. Hernandez A,Zainos A,Romo R(2000)Neuronal correlates of a sensory

Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization J.Neurosci.,June15,2003?23(12):5235–5246?5245

discrimination in the somatosensory cortex.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:6191–6196.

Hernandez A,Zainos A,Romo R(2002)Temporal evolution of a decision-making process in medial premotor cortex.Neuron33:959–972. Hubel DH,Wiesel TN(1962)Receptive fields,binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex.J Physiol(Lond) 160:106–154.

Kanwisher N(2000)Domain specificity in face perception.Nat Neurosci 3:759–763.

Kim JN,Shadlen MN(1999)Neural correlates of a decision in the dorsolat-eral prefrontal cortex of the macaque.Nat Neurosci2:176–185. Knoblich U,Freedman DJ,Riesenhuber M(2002)Categorization in IT and PFC:model and experiments.AI Memo2002–007.Cambridge,MA:MIT AI Laboratory.

Kobatake E,Wang G,Tanaka K(1998)Effects of shape discrimination training on the selectivity of inferotemporal cells in adult monkeys.J Neu-rophysiol80:324–330.

Logothetis NK,Sheinberg DL(1996)Visual object recognition.Annu Rev Neurosci19:577–621.

Logothetis NK,Pauls J,Poggio T(1995)Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys.Curr Biol5:552–563.

Miller EK(2000)The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control.Nat Rev Neu-rosci1:59–65.

Miller EK,Cohen JD(2001)An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex func-tion.Annu Rev Neurosci24:167–202.

Miller EK,Desimone R(1994)Parallel Neuronal mechanisms for short-term memory.Science263:520–522.

Miller EK,Li L,Desimone R(1991)A neural mechanism for working and recognition memory in inferior temporal cortex.Science254:1377–1379. Miller EK,Li L,Desimone R(1993)Activity of neurons in anterior inferior temporal cortex during a short-term memory task.J Neurosci 13:1460–1478.

Miller EK,Erickson CA,Desimone R(1996)Neural mechanisms of visual working memory in prefrontal cortex of the macaque.J Neurosci 16:5154–5167.

Miyashita Y(1988)Neuronal correlate of visual associative long-term memory in the primate temporal cortex.Nature335:817–820.

Nieder A,Freedman DJ,Miller EK(2002)Representation of the quantity of visual items in the primate prefrontal cortex.Science297:1708–1711. Op de Beeck H,Wagemans J,Vogels R(2001)Inferotemporal neurons rep-resent low-dimensional configurations of parameterized shapes.Nat Neurosci4:1244–1252.

Paxinos G,Huang XF,Toga AW(2000)The rhesus monkey brain in stereo-taxic coordinates.San Diego:Academic.

Perrett D,Oram M(1993)Neurophysiology of shape processing.Imag Vis Comput11:317–333.

Perrett DI,Rolls ET,Caan W(1982)Visual neurones responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex.Exp Brain Res47:329–342.Rainer G,Miller EK(2000)Effects of visual experience on the representa-tion of objects in the prefrontal cortex.Neuron27:179–189.

Rainer G,Asaad WF,Miller EK(1998)Selective representation of relevant information by neurons in the primate prefrontal cortex.Nature 393:577–579.

Riesenhuber M,Poggio T(1999)Hierarchical models of object recognition in cortex.Nat Neurosci2:1019–1025.

Riesenhuber M,Poggio T(2000)Models of object recognition.Nat Neuro-sci[Suppl]3:1199–1204.

Riesenhuber M,Poggio T(2002)Neural mechanisms of object recognition.

Curr Opin Neurobiol12:162–168.

Romo R,Salinas E(2003)Flutter discrimination:neural codes,perception, memory and decision making.Nat Rev Neurosci4:203–218.

Romo R,Brody CD,Hernandez A,Lemus L(1999)Neuronal correlates of parametric working memory in the prefrontal cortex.Nature 399:470–473.

Romo R,Hernandez A,Zainos A,Lemus L,Brody CD(2002)Neuronal correlates of decision-making in secondary somatosensory cortex.Nat Neurosci5:1217–1225.

Shelton C(2000)Morphable surface models.Int J Comp Vis38:75–91. Sigala N,Logothetis NK(2002)Visual categorization shapes feature selec-tivity in the primate temporal cortex.Nature415:318–320.

Tanaka K(1996)Inferotemporal cortex and object vision.Annu Rev Neu-rosci19:109–139.

Thomas E,Van Hulle MM,Vogels R(2001)Encoding of categories by noncategory-specific neurons in the inferior temporal cortex.J Cognit Neurosci13:190–200.

Tolhurst DJ,Movshon JA,Dean AF(1983)The statistical reliability of sig-nals in single neurons in cat and monkey visual cortex.Vision Res 23:775–785.

Tomita H,Ohbayashi M,Nakahara K,Hasegawa I,Miyashita Y(1999)Top-down signal from prefrontal cortex in executive control of memory re-trieval.Nature401:699–703.

Ungerleider LG,Gaffan D,Pelak VS(1989)Projections from inferior tem-poral cortex to prefrontal cortex via the uncinate fascicle in rhesus mon-keys.Exp Brain Res76:473–484.

Vogels R(1999)Categorization of complex visual images by rhesus mon-keys.Eur J Neurosci11:1223–1238.

Wallis G,Rolls ET(1997)Invariant face and object recognition in the visual system.Prog Neurobiol51:167–194.

Wallis JD,Anderson KC,Miller EK(2001)Single neurons in prefrontal cor-tex encode abstract rules.Nature411:953–956.

Webster MJ,Bachevalier J,Ungerleider LG(1994)Connections of inferior temporal areas TEO and TE with parietal and frontal cortex in macaque monkeys.Cereb Cortex4:470–483.

White IM,Wise SP(1999)Rule-dependent neuronal activity in the prefron-tal cortex.Exp Brain Res126:315–335.

5246?J.Neurosci.,June15,2003?23(12):5235–5246Freedman et al.?Comparison of PFC and ITC during Visual Categorization

从实践的角度探讨在日语教学中多媒体课件的应用

从实践的角度探讨在日语教学中多媒体课件的应用 在今天中国的许多大学，为适应现代化，信息化的要求，建立了设备完善的适应多媒体教学的教室。许多学科的研究者及现场教员也积极致力于多媒体软件的开发和利用。在大学日语专业的教学工作中，教科书、磁带、粉笔为主流的传统教学方式差不多悄然向先进的教学手段而进展。 一、多媒体课件和精品课程的进展现状 然而，目前在专业日语教学中能够利用的教学软件并不多见。比如在中国大学日语的专业、第二外語用教科书常见的有《新编日语》（上海外语教育出版社）、《中日交流标准日本語》（初级、中级）（人民教育出版社）、《新编基础日语（初級、高級）》（上海译文出版社）、《大学日本语》（四川大学出版社）、《初级日语》《中级日语》（北京大学出版社）、《新世纪大学日语》（外语教学与研究出版社）、《综合日语》（北京大学出版社）、《新编日语教程》（华东理工大学出版社）《新编初级（中级）日本语》（吉林教育出版社）、《新大学日本语》（大连理工大学出版社）、《新大学日语》（高等教育出版社）、《现代日本语》（上海外语教育出版社）、《基础日语》（复旦大学出版社）等等。配套教材以录音磁带、教学参考、习题集为主。只有《中日交流標準日本語（初級上）》、《初級日语》、《新编日语教程》等少数教科书配备了多媒体DVD视听教材。 然而这些试听教材，有的内容为日语普及读物，并不适合专业外语课堂教学。比如《新版中日交流标准日本语（初级上）》，有的尽管DVD视听教材中有丰富的动画画面和语音练习。然而，课堂操作则花费时刻长，不利于教师重点指导，更加适合学生的课余练习。比如北京大学的《初级日语》等。在这种情形下，许多大学的日语专业致力于教材的自主开发。 其中，有些大学的还推出精品课程，取得了专门大成绩。比如天津外国语学院的《新编日语》多媒体精品课程为2007年被评为“国家级精品课”。目前已被南开大学外国语学院、成都理工大学日语系等全国40余所大学推广使用。

五年级上册成语解释及近义词反义词和造句大全.doc

五年级上册成语解释及近义词反义词和造句大全 囫囵吞枣；【解释】：囫囵：整个儿。把枣整个咽下去，不加咀嚼，不辨味道。比喻对事物不加分析考虑。【近义词】：不求甚解【反义词】融会贯穿[造句];学习不能囫囵吞枣而是要精益求精 不求甚解；bùqiúshènjiě【解释】：甚：专门，极。只求明白个大概，不求完全了解。常指学习或研究不认真、不深入【近义词】：囫囵吞枣【反义词】：精益求精 造句；1；在学习上，我们要理解透彻，不能不求甚解 2；学习科学文化知识要刻苦钻研，深入领会，不能粗枝大叶，不求甚解。 千篇一律；【解释】：一千篇文章都一个样。指文章公式化。也比喻办事按一个格式，专门机械。 【近义词】：千人一面、如出一辙【反义词】：千差万别、形形色色 造句；学生旳作文千篇一律，专门少能有篇与众不同旳，这确实是平常旳练习太少了。 倾盆大雨；qīngpéndàyǔ【解释】：雨大得象盆里旳水直往下倒。形容雨大势急。 【近义词】：大雨如柱、大雨滂沱【反义词】：细雨霏霏牛毛细雨 造句；3月旳天说变就变，瞬间下了一场倾盆大雨。今天下了一场倾盆大雨。 坚决果断；áobùyóuyù：意思；做事果断，专门快拿定了主意，一点都不迟疑，形容态度坚决 近义词；不假思索斩钉截铁反义词；犹豫不决 造句；1看到小朋友落水，司马光坚决果断地搬起石头砸缸。2我坚决果断旳承诺了她旳要求。 饥肠辘辘jīchánglùlù【近义词】：饥不择食【反义词】：丰衣足食 造句；1我放学回家已是饥肠辘辘。2那个饥肠辘辘旳小孩差不多两天没吃饭了 滚瓜烂熟gǔnguālànshóu〔shú)【解释】：象从瓜蔓上掉下来旳瓜那样熟。形容读书或背书流利纯熟。【近义词】：倒背如流【反义词】：半生半熟造句；1、这篇课文我们早已背得滚瓜烂熟了 流光溢彩【liúguāngyìcǎi】解释；光影，满溢旳色彩，形容色彩明媚 造句：国庆节，商场里装饰旳流光溢彩。 津津有味；jīnjīnyǒuwèi解释：兴趣浓厚旳模样。指吃得专门有味道或谈得专门有兴趣。 【近义词】：兴致勃勃有滋有味【反义词】：索然无味、枯燥无味 造句；1今天旳晚餐真丰富，小明吃得津津有味。 天长日久；tiānchángrìjiǔ【解释】：时刻长，生活久。【近义词】：天长地久【反义词】：稍纵即逝 造句：小缺点假如不立即改掉, 天长日久就会变成坏适应 如醉如痴rúzuìrúchī【解释】：形容神态失常，失去自制。【近义词】：如梦如醉【反义词】：恍然大悟造句；这么美妙旳音乐，我听得如醉如痴。 浮想联翩【fúxiǎngliánpiān解释】：浮想：飘浮不定旳想象；联翩：鸟飞旳模样，比喻连续不断。指许许多多旳想象不断涌现出来。【近义词】：思绪万千 造句；1他旳话让人浮想联翩。2:这幅画饱含诗情，使人浮想联翩，神游画外，得到美旳享受。 悲欢离合bēihuānlíhé解释；欢乐、离散、聚会。泛指生活中经历旳各种境遇和由此产生旳各种心情【近义词】：酸甜苦辣、喜怒哀乐【反义词】：平淡无奇 造句；1人一辈子即是悲欢离合,总要笑口常开,我们旳生活才阳光明媚. 牵肠挂肚qiānchángguàdù【解释】：牵：拉。形容十分惦念，放心不下 造句；儿行千里母担忧，母亲总是那个为你牵肠挂肚旳人 如饥似渴rújīsìkě：形容要求专门迫切，仿佛饿了急着要吃饭，渴了急着要喝水一样。 造句；我如饥似渴地一口气读完这篇文章。他对知识旳如饥似渴旳态度造就了他今天旳成功。 不言而喻bùyánéryù【解释】：喻：了解，明白。不用说话就能明白。形容道理专门明显。 【近义词】：显而易见【反义词】：扑朔迷离造句；1珍惜时刻，好好学习，那个道理是不言而喻旳 与众不同；yǔzhòngbùtóng【解释】：跟大伙不一样。 〖近义词〗别出心裁〖反义词〗平淡无奇。造句； 1从他与众不同旳解题思路中，看出他专门聪慧。2他是个与众不同旳小孩

新视野大学英语全部课文原文

Unit1 Americans believe no one stands still. If you are not moving ahead, you are falling behind. This attitude results in a nation of people committed to researching, experimenting and exploring. Time is one of the two elements that Americans save carefully, the other being labor. "We are slaves to nothing but the clock,” it has been said. Time is treated as if it were something almost real. We budget it, save it, waste it, steal it, kill it, cut it, account for it; we also charge for it. It is a precious resource. Many people have a rather acute sense of the shortness of each lifetime. Once the sands have run out of a person’s hourglass, they cannot be replaced. We want every minute to count. A foreigner’s first impression of the U.S. is li kely to be that everyone is in a rush -- often under pressure. City people always appear to be hurrying to get where they are going, restlessly seeking attention in a store, or elbowing others as they try to complete their shopping. Racing through daytime meals is part of the pace

成语大全及解释造句[1]

安然无恙：很平安，没有受到损失和伤害 - 造句：那次智利大地震，许多城市都毁灭了，但我叔父全家安然无恙，非常幸运。 - 拔苗助长：比喻违反事物的发展规律，急于求成，反而坏事 - 造句：“抢先教育”违背了儿童成长的客观规律，这种拔苗助长的办法结果必将造成对孩子身体和心灵的双重伤害。 - 跋山涉水：形容旅途的艰辛劳苦 - 造句：地质勘探队员不怕艰苦，跋山涉水，为祖国寻找地下的报藏。 - 百看不厌：对喜欢的人，事物等看多少遍都不厌倦。比喻非常喜欢。 -造句：到了节日里，各个景区摆设的花朵真是让人百看不厌。 - 班门弄斧：比喻在行家面前卖弄本领，不自量力 -造句：你在著名华文作家的面前卖弄华文,岂不是班门弄斧。

- 搬弄是非：把别人的话传来传去，有意挑拔，或在背后乱加议论，引起纠纷 - 造句：他们到处搬弄是非,传播流言、破坏组织内部的和谐。 - 变本加厉：指比原来更加发展。现指情况变得比本来更加严重 -造句;的坏习惯不但没有改正，反而变本加厉了. -变幻莫测：变化不可测度。变化很多，不能预料 -造句：草地的气候变幻莫测,一会儿烈日当空,一会儿大雨倾盆,忽而雨雪交加,忽而狂风怒吼。 - 别具匠心：指在技巧和艺术方面具有与众不同的巧妙构思- 造句：这篇小说让人看了回味无穷，作者确实是别巨匠心。 -不耻下问：指向地位比自己低、学识比自己少的人请教，也不感到羞耻（耻辱） -造句：学习，不仅要做到虚怀若谷，还要做到不耻下问。 -不可救药：比喻人或事物坏到无法挽救的地步 - 造句：他的问题很严重，已经不可救药。

- 不可思议：原有神秘奥妙的意思。现多指无法想象，难以理解 - 造句：我看这那座小山觉得不可思议。 -不期而遇：没有约定而遇见 -造句：高兴与悲伤总是不期而遇，或许这就是上帝再捉弄世俗吧！ -不屈不挠：形容顽强斗争,在敌人或困难面前不屈服,不低头那种不屈不挠的、要征服一切的心情 -造句：战士们不屈不挠的坚守在抗震第一线。 - 不速之客：指没有邀请而自己来的客人 - 造句：也不必说有时趁你不防钻进防盗铁门登堂入室的不速之客。 - 不屑置辩：认为不值得辩论 - 造句：孔乙己对那些嘲笑他的人显出不屑置辩的神情。 -不言而喻：形容道理很明显 -造句：你想他们这朋友之乐，尽可不言而喻了。

悲惨的近义词反义词和造句

悲惨的近义词反义词和造句 导读：悲惨的近义词 悲凉(注释:悲哀凄凉：～激越的琴声。) 悲惨的反义词 幸福(注释:个人由于理想的实现或接近而引起的一种内心满足。追求幸福是人们的普遍愿望，但剥削阶级把个人幸福看得高于一切，并把个人幸福建立在被剥削阶级的痛苦之上。无产阶级则把争取广大人民的幸福和实现全人类的解放看作最大的幸福。认为幸福不仅包括物质生活，也包括精神生活;个人幸福依赖集体幸福，集体幸福高于个人幸福;幸福不仅在于享受，而主要在于劳动和创造。) 悲惨造句 1.一个人要发现卓有成效的真理，需要千百个人在失败的探索和悲惨的错误中毁掉自己的生命。 2.贝多芬的童年尽管如是悲惨，他对这个时代和消磨这时代的地方，永远保持着一种温柔而凄凉的回忆。 3.卖火柴的小女孩在大年夜里冻死了，那情景十分悲惨。 4.他相信，他们每个人背后都有一个悲惨的故事。 5.在那次悲惨的经历之后，我深信自己绝对不是那种可以离家很远的人。 6.在人生的海洋上，最痛快的事是独断独航，但最悲惨的却是回头无岸。 7.人生是艰苦的。对不甘于平庸凡俗的人那是一场无日无夜的斗

争，往往是悲惨的、没有光华的、没有幸福的，在孤独与静寂中展开的斗争。……他们只能依靠自己，可是有时连最强的人都不免于在苦难中蹉跎。罗曼·罗兰 8.伟大的心胸，应该表现出这样的气概用笑脸来迎接悲惨的厄运，用百倍的勇气来应付开始的不幸。鲁迅人在逆境里比在在顺境里更能坚强不屈。遇厄运时比交好运时容易保全身心。 9.要抓紧时间赶快生活，因为一场莫名其妙的疾病，或者一个意外的悲惨事件，都会使生命中断。奥斯特洛夫斯基。 10.在我一生中最悲惨的一个时期，我曾经有过那类的想法：去年夏天在我回到这儿附近的地方时，这想法还缠着我;可是只有她自己的亲自说明才能使我再接受这可怕的想法。 11.他们说一个悲惨的故事是悲剧，但一千个这样的故事就只是一个统计了。 12.不要向诱惑屈服，而浪费时间去阅读别人悲惨的详细新闻。 13.那起悲惨的事件深深地铭刻在我的记忆中。 14.伟大的心胸，应该用笑脸来迎接悲惨的厄运，用百倍的勇气来应付一切的不幸。 15.一个人要发现卓有成效的真理，需要千百万个人在失败的探索和悲惨的错误中毁掉自己的生命。门捷列夫 16.生活需要爱，没有爱，那些受灾的人们生活将永远悲惨;生活需要爱，爱就像调味料，使生活这道菜充满滋味;生活需要爱，爱让生活永远充满光明。

新视野大学英语第三版第二册课文语法讲解 Unit4

新视野三版读写B2U4Text A College sweethearts 1I smile at my two lovely daughters and they seem so much more mature than we,their parents,when we were college sweethearts.Linda,who's21,had a boyfriend in her freshman year she thought she would marry,but they're not together anymore.Melissa,who's19,hasn't had a steady boyfriend yet.My daughters wonder when they will meet"The One",their great love.They think their father and I had a classic fairy-tale romance heading for marriage from the outset.Perhaps,they're right but it didn't seem so at the time.In a way, love just happens when you least expect it.Who would have thought that Butch and I would end up getting married to each other?He became my boyfriend because of my shallow agenda:I wanted a cute boyfriend! 2We met through my college roommate at the university cafeteria.That fateful night,I was merely curious,but for him I think it was love at first sight."You have beautiful eyes",he said as he gazed at my face.He kept staring at me all night long.I really wasn't that interested for two reasons.First,he looked like he was a really wild boy,maybe even dangerous.Second,although he was very cute,he seemed a little weird. 3Riding on his bicycle,he'd ride past my dorm as if"by accident"and pretend to be surprised to see me.I liked the attention but was cautious about his wild,dynamic personality.He had a charming way with words which would charm any girl.Fear came over me when I started to fall in love.His exciting"bad boy image"was just too tempting to resist.What was it that attracted me?I always had an excellent reputation.My concentration was solely on my studies to get superior grades.But for what?College is supposed to be a time of great learning and also some fun.I had nearly achieved a great education,and graduation was just one semester away.But I hadn't had any fun;my life was stale with no component of fun!I needed a boyfriend.Not just any boyfriend.He had to be cute.My goal that semester became: Be ambitious and grab the cutest boyfriend I can find. 4I worried what he'd think of me.True,we lived in a time when a dramatic shift in sexual attitudes was taking place,but I was a traditional girl who wasn't ready for the new ways that seemed common on campus.Butch looked superb!I was not immune to his personality,but I was scared.The night when he announced to the world that I was his girlfriend,I went along

常用成语造句大全及解释

常用成语造句大全及解释 导读：常用成语及造句大全： 【马到功成】形容事情顺利，一开始就取得胜利。 朋友要去参加考试我发自内心的祝她马到功成。 【安常守故】习惯于日常的平稳糊口，保保守的一套。指保守不知厘革。 他持久以来安常守故，缺乏锻炼，故而经不起挫折。 【挨门逐户】挨家挨户，一家也没有遗漏。 倾销员挨门逐户地倾销产物，可是并没有多少人愿意买 【破釜沉舟】比喻下决心悍然不顾地干到底。 只要咱们有破釜沉舟的决心，就能克服进修上的各类困难。 【大千世界】三昧，世界的千倍叫小千世界，小千世界的千倍叫中千世界，中千世界的千倍叫大千世界。后指广大无边的人世。 大千世界无奇不有，充满了抵牾。 【空手发迹】一切靠自己艰辛奋斗，创立了一番事业。 王董事长空手发迹，如今是王氏集团的总裁。 【卷土重来】卷土：人马奔跑时卷起的尘土。形容失败后组织力量，重图恢复。 这次角逐虽则表现不佳，但我决定明天卷土重来。 【晨钟暮鼓】古代梵宇中晨敲钟，暮伐鼓以报时，用以使人惊悟的言论。 每当我想坏事时，就会想起母亲对我的晨钟暮鼓的叮咛。

【力争上游】起劲争取长进求学做人都要力争上游，不要自满於近况 【投笔从戎】一小我私家抛弃文职而插手卫国的行列。 大伯父高中结业后投笔从戎，步入军校就读，负起保家卫国的责任。 【前车之鉴】比喻前人的失败，可以作为后人的借鉴。 有了这个前车之鉴，我下次出门一定会带雨具。 【金石为开】至诚可感动任何事物。 表哥相信精诚所至，金石为开，他的成意一定可以感动王小姐的。 【勤能补拙】指勤勉起劲能弥补天资上的不足。 勤能补拙，只要你多付出心思，一定有乐成的机会。 【揠苗助长】揠：拔起。把苗拔起，以助其生长。后用来比喻违反事物的发展规律，操之过急，反倒坏事。 对学生的教育既不能揠苗助长，也能任其自然。 【闻鸡起舞】听见鸡鸣就起身，比喻人发奋勇前进修，励精图治。 老爷爷在乡间修养，天天闻鸡起舞，打太极健身。 【哀鸿遍野】哀鸿：哀鸣的鸿雁。比喻饥寒交迫的灾民。比喻在天灾人祸中到处都是流离失所、呻吟呼号的饥民。 旧社会，每逢水灾战乱，人民就被迫四处逃亡，～，一片凄凉。 【联袂登台】同台演出 今晚的演出听说会有两位名角联袂登台献艺。 【使人咋舌】令人惊讶

新视野大学英语读写教程第一册课文翻译及课后答案

Unit 1 1学习外语是我一生中最艰苦也是最有意义的经历之一。虽然时常遭遇挫折，但却非常有价值。 2我学外语的经历始于初中的第一堂英语课。老师很慈祥耐心，时常表扬学生。由于这种积极的教学方法，我踊跃回答各种问题，从不怕答错。两年中，我的成绩一直名列前茅。 3到了高中后，我渴望继续学习英语。然而，高中时的经历与以前大不相同。以前，老师对所有的学生都很耐心，而新老师则总是惩罚答错的学生。每当有谁回答错了，她就会用长教鞭指着我们，上下挥舞大喊：“错！错！错！”没有多久，我便不再渴望回答问题了。我不仅失去了回答问题的乐趣，而且根本就不想再用英语说半个字。 4好在这种情况没持续多久。到了大学，我了解到所有学生必须上英语课。与高中老师不。大学英语老师非常耐心和蔼，而且从来不带教鞭！不过情况却远不尽如人意。由于班大，每堂课能轮到我回答的问题寥寥无几。上了几周课后，我还发现许多同学的英语说得比我要好得多。我开始产生一种畏惧感。虽然原因与高中时不同，但我却又一次不敢开口了。看来我的英语水平要永远停步不前了。 5直到几年后我有机会参加远程英语课程，情况才有所改善。这种课程的媒介是一台电脑、一条电话线和一个调制解调器。我很快配齐了必要的设备并跟一个朋友学会了电脑操作技术，于是我每周用5到7天在网上的虚拟课堂里学习英语。 6网上学习并不比普通的课堂学习容易。它需要花许多的时间，需要学习者专心自律，以跟上课程进度。我尽力达到课程的最低要求，并按时完成作业。 7我随时随地都在学习。不管去哪里，我都随身携带一本袖珍字典和笔记本，笔记本上记着我遇到的生词。我学习中出过许多错，有时是令人尴尬的错误。有时我会因挫折而哭泣，有时甚至想放弃。但我从未因别的同学英语说得比我快而感到畏惧，因为在电脑屏幕上作出回答之前，我可以根据自己的需要花时间去琢磨自己的想法。突然有一天我发现自己什么都懂了，更重要的是，我说起英语来灵活自如。尽管我还是常常出错，还有很多东西要学，但我已尝到了刻苦学习的甜头。 8学习外语对我来说是非常艰辛的经历，但它又无比珍贵。它不仅使我懂得了艰苦努力的意义，而且让我了解了不同的文化，让我以一种全新的思维去看待事物。学习一门外语最令人兴奋的收获是我能与更多的人交流。与人交谈是我最喜欢的一项活动，新的语言使我能与陌生人交往，参与他们的谈话，并建立新的难以忘怀的友谊。由于我已能说英语，别人讲英语时我不再茫然不解了。我能够参与其中，并结交朋友。我能与人交流，并能够弥合我所说的语言和所处的文化与他们的语言和文化之间的鸿沟。 III. 1. rewarding 2. communicate 3. access 4. embarrassing 5. positive 6. commitment 7. virtual 8. benefits 9. minimum 10. opportunities IV. 1. up 2. into 3. from 4. with 5. to 6. up 7. of 8. in 9. for 10.with V. 1.G 2.B 3.E 4.I 5.H 6.K 7.M 8.O 9.F 10.C Sentence Structure VI. 1. Universities in the east are better equipped, while those in the west are relatively poor. 2. Allan Clark kept talking the price up, while Wilkinson kept knocking it down. 3. The husband spent all his money drinking, while his wife saved all hers for the family. 4. Some guests spoke pleasantly and behaved politely, while others wee insulting and impolite. 5. Outwardly Sara was friendly towards all those concerned, while inwardly she was angry. VII. 1. Not only did Mr. Smith learn the Chinese language, but he also bridged the gap between his culture and ours. 2. Not only did we learn the technology through the online course, but we also learned to communicate with friends in English. 3. Not only did we lose all our money, but we also came close to losing our lives.

新大学日语简明教程课文翻译

新大学日语简明教程课文翻译 第21课 一、我的留学生活 我从去年12月开始学习日语。已经3个月了。每天大约学30个新单词。每天学15个左右的新汉字，但总记不住。假名已经基本记住了。 简单的会话还可以，但较难的还说不了。还不能用日语发表自己的意见。既不能很好地回答老师的提问，也看不懂日语的文章。短小、简单的信写得了，但长的信写不了。 来日本不久就迎来了新年。新年时，日本的少女们穿着美丽的和服，看上去就像新娘。非常冷的时候，还是有女孩子穿着裙子和袜子走在大街上。 我在日本的第一个新年过得很愉快，因此很开心。 现在学习忙，没什么时间玩，但周末常常运动，或骑车去公园玩。有时也邀朋友一起去。虽然我有国际驾照，但没钱，买不起车。没办法，需要的时候就向朋友借车。有几个朋友愿意借车给我。 二、一个房间变成三个 从前一直认为睡在褥子上的是日本人，美国人都睡床铺，可是听说近来纽约等大都市的年轻人不睡床铺，而是睡在褥子上，是不是突然讨厌起床铺了？ 日本人自古以来就睡在褥子上，那自有它的原因。人们都说日本人的房子小，从前，很少有人在自己的房间，一家人住在一个小房间里是常有的是，今天仍然有人过着这样的生活。 在仅有的一个房间哩，如果要摆下全家人的床铺，就不能在那里吃饭了。这一点，褥子很方便。早晨，不需要褥子的时候，可以收起来。在没有了褥子的房间放上桌子，当作饭厅吃早饭。来客人的话，就在那里喝茶；孩子放学回到家里，那房间就成了书房。而后，傍晚又成为饭厅。然后收起桌子，铺上褥子，又成为了全家人睡觉的地方。 如果是床铺的话，除了睡觉的房间，还需要吃饭的房间和书房等，但如果使用褥子，一个房间就可以有各种用途。 据说从前，在纽约等大都市的大学学习的学生也租得起很大的房间。但现在房租太贵，租不起了。只能住更便宜、更小的房间。因此，似乎开始使用睡觉时作床，白天折小能成为椅子的、方便的褥子。

成语解释及例句

初二上语文期末复习之成语运用专项训练 1.恍如隔世：恍惚如同相隔了一辈子。喻事物变化发展很快，变化很大。 例句：他曾因躲避战乱而隐居深山，和平后下山才发觉人间变化巨大，真是感觉恍如隔世。 2.轻描淡写：原意是绘画时用浅淡颜色轻轻描绘。形容说话或作文章时对重要的地方淡淡带过。也比喻做事不费力。 例句：医生未说实话，看他可怜，就用轻描淡写的话安慰他。 如此严重的问题，轻描淡写地说了说就算完了？ 3.与狼共舞：跟恶狼一起跳舞，比喻跟所谋求的对象有利害冲突,决不能成功。后多指跟恶人商量,要他牺牲自己的利 益,一定办不到。也说比喻与恶人在一起，随时都有危险，须特别谨慎。 例句：没有比与狼共舞更危险的事情。江山易改，本性难移。狼就是狼，无论外表装饰得如何漂亮，不管如何能言善辩，狼就是狼，早晚会露出凶残、狡猾的真面目。 4.林林总总：林林:树木聚集成片的样子;总总:全部汇集状。形容人或事物繁多。 例句：在林林总总的这类故事中，也有一个是说鲁班学习海龙王宫殿的建筑艺术。 5.不速之客：速:邀请。没有邀请而自己来的客人。指意想不到的客人。 例句：我们正在聚餐时来了一位不速之客。 多年不见的老朋友，突然出现在我的眼前，真是不速之客。 大会主席团作出决定，会议期间不准无故迟到，对那些不遵守大会纪律的不速之客要通报批评。（不是突然来到的人。语意不符） 6.责无旁贷：自己的责任，不能推卸给别人；贷，推卸。 例句：杨丽萍在接受媒体采访时说，保护洱海，她责无旁贷，同时她欢迎广大媒体、网友监督。 作为课题负责人，他责无旁贷地走向主席台。（用“当仁不让”更合适，语意不符） 7.如火如荼：像火那样红，像荼（茅草的白花）那样白。原比喻军容之盛，现用来形容旺盛、热烈或激烈。 例句：过了两年“五四运动”发生了。报纸上的如火如荼的记载唤醒了他的被忘却了的青春。 8.鳞次栉比：形容房屋密集，像鱼鳞和梳子的齿一样，一个挨着一个地排列着。 例句：鳞次栉比的摩天大楼在霍尔河畔奇迹般地崛起，让人以为自己仿佛到了纽约。 包头是一个倚山濒水的城市，向北是峰峦鳞次栉比的阴山，向南是波涛汹涌、曲折回环的黄河。（多用来形容房屋或船只等排列得很密很整齐。不能用来形容“山”。） 9.珠光宝气：闪耀着珍宝的光色。多形容妇女服饰华贵富丽。 例句：温德姆大堂的香氛过于浓烈，像一个珠光宝气、香水味四溢的贵妇人如影随行。 10.退避三舍：比喻对人让步，不与相争。 例句：可见二位仁兄的学问，不但本校众人所不能及，即使天下文才，也当退避三舍哩! 这个地头蛇，人见人怕，连警察见了他都要退避三舍。（“退避三舍”比喻对人让步，不与之相争；不是形容害怕、恐怖。） 11.司空见惯：看惯了的事情，并不觉得奇怪。 例句：这种种行为，在我们初来的东方人看来，多少存着好奇心和注意的态度，但在他们已司空见惯了。 我们都司空见惯了那种“违者罚款”的告示牌。（“司空见惯”的意思是形容经常看到不足为奇的事物。后面不能带宾语。） 12.月白风清：形容月夜的明朗幽静。 例句：这是一个月白风清的良宵，校园散步的人三三两两从我身边走过。 13.脍炙人口：本指美味人人都爱吃，现比喻好的诗文或事物人人都称赞。 例句：我国古典诗歌内蕴丰富，很能激发人们的联想和想象。“日出江花红胜火，春来江水绿如蓝”，吟咏这脍炙人口的诗句，谁不为春回大地后祖国母亲多姿多彩的面貌而自豪。 历史是一面脍炙人口的镜子，面对它，我会正衣冠，知兴替，明得失。（指美味人人爱吃。比喻好的诗文受到人们和称赞和传讼。不能修饰“镜子”） 14.鲁殿灵光：汉代鲁恭王建有灵光殿，屡经战乱而岿然独存。后用来称硕果仅存的人或事物。

新视野大学英语第一册Unit 1课文翻译

新视野大学英语第一册Unit 1课文翻译 学习外语是我一生中最艰苦也是最有意义的经历之一。 虽然时常遭遇挫折，但却非常有价值。 我学外语的经历始于初中的第一堂英语课。 老师很慈祥耐心，时常表扬学生。 由于这种积极的教学方法，我踊跃回答各种问题，从不怕答错。 两年中，我的成绩一直名列前茅。 到了高中后，我渴望继续学习英语。然而，高中时的经历与以前大不相同。 以前，老师对所有的学生都很耐心，而新老师则总是惩罚答错的学生。 每当有谁回答错了，她就会用长教鞭指着我们，上下挥舞大喊：“错！错！错！” 没有多久，我便不再渴望回答问题了。 我不仅失去了回答问题的乐趣，而且根本就不想再用英语说半个字。 好在这种情况没持续多久。 到了大学，我了解到所有学生必须上英语课。 与高中老师不同，大学英语老师非常耐心和蔼，而且从来不带教鞭！ 不过情况却远不尽如人意。 由于班大，每堂课能轮到我回答的问题寥寥无几。 上了几周课后，我还发现许多同学的英语说得比我要好得多。 我开始产生一种畏惧感。 虽然原因与高中时不同，但我却又一次不敢开口了。 看来我的英语水平要永远停步不前了。 直到几年后我有机会参加远程英语课程，情况才有所改善。 这种课程的媒介是一台电脑、一条电话线和一个调制解调器。 我很快配齐了必要的设备并跟一个朋友学会了电脑操作技术，于是我每周用5到7天在网上的虚拟课堂里学习英语。 网上学习并不比普通的课堂学习容易。 它需要花许多的时间，需要学习者专心自律，以跟上课程进度。 我尽力达到课程的最低要求，并按时完成作业。 我随时随地都在学习。 不管去哪里，我都随身携带一本袖珍字典和笔记本，笔记本上记着我遇到的生词。 我学习中出过许多错，有时是令人尴尬的错误。 有时我会因挫折而哭泣，有时甚至想放弃。 但我从未因别的同学英语说得比我快而感到畏惧，因为在电脑屏幕上作出回答之前，我可以根据自己的需要花时间去琢磨自己的想法。 突然有一天我发现自己什么都懂了，更重要的是，我说起英语来灵活自如。 尽管我还是常常出错，还有很多东西要学，但我已尝到了刻苦学习的甜头。 学习外语对我来说是非常艰辛的经历，但它又无比珍贵。 它不仅使我懂得了艰苦努力的意义，而且让我了解了不同的文化，让我以一种全新的思维去看待事物。 学习一门外语最令人兴奋的收获是我能与更多的人交流。 与人交谈是我最喜欢的一项活动，新的语言使我能与陌生人交往，参与他们的谈话，并建立新的难以忘怀的友谊。 由于我已能说英语，别人讲英语时我不再茫然不解了。 我能够参与其中，并结交朋友。

新大学日语阅读与写作1 第3课译文

习惯与礼仪 我是个漫画家，对旁人细微的动作、不起眼的举止等抱有好奇。所以，我在国外只要做错一点什么，立刻会比旁人更为敏锐地感觉到那个国家的人们对此作出的反应。 譬如我多次看到过，欧美人和中国人见到我们日本人吸溜吸溜地出声喝汤而面露厌恶之色。过去，日本人坐在塌塌米上，在一张低矮的食案上用餐，餐具离嘴较远。所以，养成了把碗端至嘴边吸食的习惯。喝羹匙里的东西也象吸似的，声声作响。这并非哪一方文化高或低，只是各国的习惯、礼仪不同而已。 日本人坐在椅子上围桌用餐是1960年之后的事情。当时，还没有礼仪规矩，甚至有人盘着腿吃饭。外国人看见此景大概会一脸厌恶吧。 韩国女性就座时，单腿翘起。我认为这种姿势很美，但习惯于双膝跪坐的日本女性大概不以为然，而韩国女性恐怕也不认为跪坐为好。 日本等多数亚洲国家，常有人习惯在路上蹲着。欧美人会联想起狗排便的姿势而一脸厌恶。 日本人常常把手放在小孩的头上说“好可爱啊！”，而大部分外国人会不愿意。 如果向回教国家的人们劝食猪肉和酒，或用左手握手、递东西，会不受欢迎的。当然，饭菜也用右手抓着吃。只有从公用大盘往自己的小盘里分食用的公勺是用左手拿。一旦搞错，用黏糊糊的右手去拿，

会遭人厌恶。 在欧美，对不受欢迎的客人不说“请脱下外套”，所以电视剧中的侦探哥隆波总是穿着外套。访问日本家庭时，要在门厅外脱掉外套后进屋。穿到屋里会不受欢迎的。 这些习惯只要了解就不会出问题，如果因为不知道而遭厌恶、憎恨，实在心里难受。 过去，我曾用色彩图画和简短的文字画了一本《关键时刻的礼仪》（新潮文库）。如今越发希望用各国语言翻译这本书。以便能对在日本的外国人有所帮助。同时希望有朝一日以漫画的形式画一本“世界各国的习惯与礼仪”。 练习答案 ５、 （１）止める並んでいる見ているなる着色した （２）拾った入っていた行ったしまった始まっていた

三年级下册成语解释及造句

群芳吐艳：各种花草树木竞相开放出艳丽的花朵。比喻各种不同形式和风格的艺 术自由发展。也形容艺术界的繁荣景象。 什么花儿都争着开放.形容春意盎然的样子 造句—花展上的鲜花竞相开放，真是群芳吐艳，美不胜收啊！ 春天悄然而至，走到花园里，各种花群芳吐艳。 姹紫嫣红：姹：美丽。嫣：美好。形容各种花娇艳美丽 春天来了，处处姹紫嫣红，花儿们争先恐后的开放着。 满园的鲜花，争相怒放，一片姹紫嫣红、生机勃勃的景象，令人流连忘返。 郁郁葱葱的草丛中，一些姹紫嫣红的花朵煞是好看，大有百花争艳的气势。 落英缤纷：落英：落花。缤纷：繁多凌乱的样子。形容落花纷纷飘落的美丽情景。 这里山清水秀，落英缤纷，景色迷人。 傍晚的梅花林，斜阳西坠，落英缤纷，实在太美了。 鲜花盛开，花瓣纷纷飘落。形容春天的美好景色。也指花儿凋谢的暮春天气。 郁郁葱葱：形容草木苍翠茂盛的样子。也形容气势美好蓬勃。 山道两旁到处郁郁葱葱，风景美不胜收。 细雨滋润过后的草地绿意盎然郁郁葱葱。 那片树木葱葱郁郁的，十分茂盛。 夏日的池塘里,郁郁葱葱的荷叶映衬着亭亭玉立的荷花,真是一幅美丽的画卷啊! 那片树木葱葱郁郁的，十分茂盛。 喷薄欲出：喷薄：有力地向上涌的样子。形容水涌起或太阳初升时涌上地平线 的景象。 鸟儿唱着欢乐的歌，迎接着喷薄欲出的朝阳。 .我们来到了层峦叠翠郁郁葱葱的山腰.喷薄欲出的红日照耀着苍翠欲滴的古松。 旭日东升：旭日:早上刚出来的太阳．早上太阳从东方升起．形容朝气蓬勃的 气象． 在这个旭日东升晴朗的早晨，让我们一起来热情的做早操吧！ 中国正如旭日东升般，充满活力。 她们黑暗中挣扎和最后看到了旭日东升，破涕为笑，对未来充满希望。

知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句

知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句 本文是关于知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句，感谢您的阅读！ 知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句知己 基本解释：顾名思义是了解、理解、赏识自己的人，如"知己知彼，百战不殆";更常指懂你自己的挚友或密友，它是一生难求的朋友，友情的最高境界。正所谓:"士为知己者死"。 1.谓了解、理解、赏识、懂自己。 2.彼此相知而情谊深切的人。 【知己近义词】 亲信，好友，密友，心腹，挚友，深交，相知，知交，知友，知心，知音，石友，老友，至友 【知己反义词】 仇人敌人陌路 【知己造句】 1、我们想要被人爱、想拥有知己、想历经欢乐、想要安全感。 2、朋友本应是我们的亲密知己和支持者，但对于大多数人来说，有一些朋友比起帮助我们，更多的却是阻碍。 3、那么，为什么你就认为，随着年龄的增长，比起女人来男人们的知己和丰富的人际关系更少，因此一般容易更孤独呢？ 4、他成了我的朋友、我的知己、我的顾问。 5、无论在我当州长还是总统的时候，布鲁斯都是我的密友、顾问和知己。他这样的朋友人人需要，也是所有总统必须拥有的。

6、波兰斯基有着一段声名卓著的电影生涯，也是几乎所有电影界重要人物们的挚友和同事，他们是知己，是亲密的伙伴。 7、搜索引擎变成了可以帮追我们的忏悔室，知己，信得过的朋友。 8、这样看来，奥巴马国家安全团队中最具影响力的当属盖茨了――但他却是共和党人，他不会就五角大楼以外问题发表看法或成为总统知己。 9、我们的关系在二十年前就已经和平的结束了，但在网上，我又一次成为了他精神层面上的评论家，拉拉队，以及红颜知己。 10、这位“知己”，作为拍摄者，站在距离电视屏幕几英尺的地方对比着自己年轻版的形象。 11、父亲与儿子相互被形容为对方的政治扩音筒、知己和后援。 12、这对夫妻几乎没有什么至交或知己依然在世，而他们在后纳粹时期的德国也不可能会说出实话的。 13、她把我当作知己，于是，我便将她和情人之间的争吵了解得一清二楚。 14、有一种友谊不低于爱情；关系不属于暖昧；倾诉一直推心置腹；结局总是难成眷属；这就是知己！ 15、把你的治疗师当做是可以分享一切心事的知己。 16、莉莉安对我敞开心胸，我成了她的知己。 17、据盖洛普民意调查显示，在那些自我认同的保守党人中，尽管布什仍维持72%支持率，但他在共和党领导层中似乎很少有几位知

新视野大学英语(第三版)读写教程第二册课文翻译(全册)

新视野大学英语第三版第二册读写课文翻译 Unit 1 Text A 一堂难忘的英语课 1 如果我是唯一一个还在纠正小孩英语的家长，那么我儿子也许是对的。对他而言，我是一个乏味的怪物：一个他不得不听其教诲的父亲，一个还沉湎于语法规则的人，对此我儿子似乎颇为反感。 2 我觉得我是在最近偶遇我以前的一位学生时，才开始对这个问题认真起来的。这个学生刚从欧洲旅游回来。我满怀着诚挚期待问她：“欧洲之行如何？” 3 她点了三四下头，绞尽脑汁，苦苦寻找恰当的词语，然后惊呼：“真是，哇！” 4 没了。所有希腊文明和罗马建筑的辉煌居然囊括于一个浓缩的、不完整的语句之中！我的学生以“哇！”来表示她的惊叹，我只能以摇头表达比之更强烈的忧虑。 5 关于正确使用英语能力下降的问题，有许多不同的故事。学生的确本应该能够区分诸如their/there/they're之间的不同，或区别complimentary 跟complementary之间显而易见的差异。由于这些知识缺陷，他们承受着大部分不该承受的批评和指责，因为舆论认为他们应该学得更好。 6 学生并不笨，他们只是被周围所看到和听到的语言误导了。举例来说，杂货店的指示牌会把他们引向stationary（静止处），虽然便笺本、相册、和笔记本等真正的stationery（文具用品）并没有被钉在那儿。朋友和亲人常宣称They've just ate。实际上，他们应该说They've just eaten。因此，批评学生不合乎情理。 7 对这种缺乏语言功底而引起的负面指责应归咎于我们的学校。学校应对英语熟练程度制定出更高的标准。可相反，学校只教零星的语法，高级词汇更是少之又少。还有就是，学校的年轻教师显然缺乏这些重要的语言结构方面的知识，因为他们过去也没接触过。学校有责任教会年轻人进行有效的语言沟通，可他们并没把语言的基本框架——准确的语法和恰当的词汇——充分地传授给学生。

成语大全解释及造句

成语大全解释及造句 本文是关于成语大全解释及造句，感谢您的阅读！ 首尾乖互：相互违违，先后自相矛盾。 你这人说话如许首尾乖互，叫我怎么信任你。 引颈受戮：戮：杀。伸长脖子等待被杀。指不作抵当而等死。 犯人知道自己罪责难逃，只有引颈受戮了。 衣不曳地：曳，拖动。时装不沾地，比喻非常繁忙。 这几天工作太多了，他都已经衣不曳地了。 水洁冰清：像冰水同样洁白清净。形容人品高洁或文笔雅致。 她是如许一个水洁冰清的人，怎么会和那一些坏人在一起。 如鲠在喉：鱼骨头卡在咽喉里。比喻生理有话没有说出来，非常难受。 我知道真象，但又不能说出来，真是如鲠在喉呀。 仰事俯畜：上要侍奉怙恃，下要养活妻儿。泛指维持一家生活。 父亲天天起早摊黑，仰事俯畜，非常辛苦。 为恶不悛：对峙作歹，不愿悔改。 这个报酬恶不悛，终究要受到法律的制裁。 无补于时：对事情没有什么益处。 此刻不努力学习，等未来悔怨了也无补于时了。 有脚书厨：戏称记闻精确、常识渊博的人。 他好学善思、常识博识，真是个有脚书厨呀 一字一珠：一个字就像一颗真珠。形容歌声婉转圆润。也比喻文

章优美、辞藻华美。 如许的文章真是一字一珠，看上几遍，还是回味无穷。 1、一拥而入：体育运动场的大门刚一打开，迷球的人们就一拥而入。 2。肝火冲冲：冲冲：感情冲动的样子。形容非常生气。《不知为何，他肝火冲冲地走进了教室。》 3。目不转睛：聚、会：堆积。形容注意力非常集中。《教室里同窗们都在目不转睛地听老师讲课。》 4。喃喃自语：自己和自己说话。《在路口经常可以看到一个老人，坐在那里喃喃自语。》 5。千钧一发：形容情况十分求助紧急。《就在要撞车的千钧一发的时候，司机紧迫刹住了汽车。》 6。精兵简政：简：使简化。《有些单位必需精兵简政，不断提高工作效率。》 7。五光十色：《一到夜晚，五光十色的灯把厦门装扮患上更加美丽。》 8。雨后春天的竹笋：形容新生物质大量涌现。《鼎新开放以来，工厂如雨后春天的竹笋般地不断涌现。》 9。满目琳琅：比喻面前出现了许多精美的物质。《那里展出的的工具满目琳琅，使我们的秋水应接没时间。》 10。顶天登时：形容形象非常高大，气概豪爽。《他至公无私，真是一个堂堂正正、顶天登时的男子汉。》