Literature DB >> 23927999

Common (and multiple) neural substrates for static and dynamic motion after-effects: a rTMS investigation.

Gianluca Campana1, Marcello Maniglia, Andrea Pavan.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged exposure to directional motion (adaptation) biases the perceived direction of subsequently presented test stimuli towards the opposite direction with respect to that of adaptation (i.e., motion after-effect; MAE). Different neural populations seem to be involved in the generation of the MAE, depending on the spatiotemporal characteristics of both adapting and test stimuli. Although the tuning mechanisms of the neural populations involved in the MAE have been psychophysically identified, the specific loci along the motion processing hierarchy where the different types of MAE take place is still debated.
METHOD: In this study, by using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivered during the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) between adapting and test patterns, we investigated the cortical locus of processing of static MAE (sMAE) and dynamic MAE (dMAE).
RESULTS: Results showed that rTMS over V2/V3 or V5/MT decreased the perceived duration of both sMAE and dMAE, although rTMS over V2/V3 decreased mainly the perceived duration of sMAE.
CONCLUSIONS: sMAE and dMAE rely on the same cortical structures present at intermediate and low-levels of motion processing, although low-level visual areas (e.g., V2/V3) show a prevalence of neurons responsible for sMAE.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dynamic motion after-effect (dMAE); Static motion after-effect (sMAE); V2/V3; V5/MT; rTMS

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23927999     DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.07.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cortex        ISSN: 0010-9452            Impact factor:   4.027


  4 in total

1.  Different time scales of motion integration for anticipatory smooth pursuit and perceptual adaptation.

Authors:  Gerrit W Maus; Elena Potapchuk; Scott N J Watamaniuk; Stephen J Heinen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Opposite effects of high- and low-frequency transcranial random noise stimulation probed with visual motion adaptation.

Authors:  Gianluca Campana; Rebecca Camilleri; Beatrice Moret; Filippo Ghin; Andrea Pavan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Common and independent processing of visual motion perception and oculomotor response.

Authors:  Sanae Yoshimoto; Tomoyuki Hayasaka
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Common framework for "virtual lesion" and state-dependent TMS: The facilitatory/suppressive range model of online TMS effects on behavior.

Authors:  Juha Silvanto; Zaira Cattaneo
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 2.310

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.