Literature DB >> 16328303

Motion adaptation: net duration matters, not continuousness.

Sven P Heinrich1, Anja M Schilling, Michael Bach.   

Abstract

Motion processing is strongly adaptable. Adaptation strength generally increases with motion duration. Little is known, though, about the effect of motion onsets and offsets, which might be relevant if adaptation is not based on motion duration per se, but on the recent cumulated activity of motion-processing mechanisms. Thus, we presented intermittent motion with three different onset rates for adaptation. The duty cycle was kept constant at 33% while the rate of motion onsets was either 1.4, 2.8, or 5.6 per second. Stationary stimuli and continuous motion were used as reference conditions. The amplitude of the N2 component of human motion visual evoked potentials was used to quantify adaptation. All three onset rates induced virtually identical amounts of adaptation (occipitally, P=0.71; occipito-temporally, P=0.27), suggesting that the continuousness of the stimulus does not play an important role in motion adaptation. This was confirmed by measuring the motion aftereffect psychophysically.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16328303     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-005-0165-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  39 in total

1.  Visual motion analysis for pursuit eye movements in area MT of macaque monkeys.

Authors:  S G Lisberger; J A Movshon
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1999-03-15       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Visual evoked potentials specific for motion onset.

Authors:  M Kuba; Z Kubová
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.379

Review 3.  No doubt about offset latency.

Authors:  Wyeth Bair
Journal:  Vis Neurosci       Date:  2004 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.241

4.  Effect of motion contrast on human cortical responses to moving stimuli.

Authors:  G L Shulman; J Schwarz; F M Miezin; S E Petersen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  The dynamics of velocity adaptation in human vision.

Authors:  S T Hammett; P G Thompson; S Bedingham
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2000-09-21       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  Human visual motion areas determined individually by magnetoencephalography and 3D magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  M Bundo; Y Kaneoke; S Inao; J Yoshida; A Nakamura; R Kakigi
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 5.038

7.  Psychophysics of motion adaptation parallels insect electrophysiology.

Authors:  C W Clifford; K Langley
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 10.834

8.  Motion-onset visual-evoked potentials as a function of retinal eccentricity in man.

Authors:  L Schlykowa; B W van Dijk; W H Ehrenstein
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  1993-10

9.  Identification of the visual motion area (area V5) in the human brain by dipole source analysis.

Authors:  T Probst; H Plendl; W Paulus; E R Wist; M Scherg
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Contrast dependence of motion-onset and pattern-reversal evoked potentials.

Authors:  Z Kubová; M Kuba; H Spekreijse; C Blakemore
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  A primer on motion visual evoked potentials.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-02-16       Impact factor: 2.379

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.