| Literature DB >> 25317907 |
Michel Akselrod1, Michael H Herzog2, Haluk Öğmen3.
Abstract
Vision is a constructive process. For example, a square, flashed at two distinct locations one after the other, appears to move smoothly between the two locations rather than as two separate flashes (apparent motion). Apparent motion is usually perceived along the shortest path between locations. Previous studies have shown that retinotopic activity in V1 correlates well with the subjective filling-in in apparent motion. If V1 activity truly reflects illusory motion, it should flexibly reflect filling-in of any path, subjectively perceived. Here, we used a path-guided apparent motion paradigm in which a faint cue, presented in addition to the squares, leads to a curved illusory motion path. We found retinotopic activity in V1 to reflect the illusory filling-in of the curved path, similarly to filling-in with linear, shortest paths. Moreover, our results show that activity along the linear path was less selective to stimulus conditions than the activity along the curved path. This finding may be interpreted as V1 activity representing a small subset of infinitely many possible solutions to ambiguous stimuli, whilst giving more weight to the shortest path/energy solution.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25317907 PMCID: PMC5377536 DOI: 10.1038/srep06063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The 6 experimental conditions.
(A, lAM) linear apparent motion: a square is, first, presented for 150 ms at +5.9° on the x-axis and at +5.9° on the y-axis with respect to fixation (upper position). An individual ISI follows and then the square is presented again for 150 ms at +5.9° on the x-axis and −5.9° on the y-axis (lower position). (B, lRM) linear real motion: a square moves smoothly between the upper and lower position following a linear trajectory (black arrows on the figure depict smooth trajectories and were not shown on the simtulus). (C, Fli) flickering squares: as in the lAM condition, except that the two squares are presented simultaneously. (D, pgAM) path-guided apparent motion: the squares are presented as in lAM and in addition a faint cue is flashed during the ISI resulting in the percept of curved motion. (E, cRM) curved real motion: a square is moving smoothly between the upper and lower positions following a curved trajectory similar as in pgAM (black arrows on the figure depict smooth trajectories and were not shown on the simtulus). (F, Cue) cue: only the faint cue is presented. Real motion conditions were used to assess an upper activity level. The flickering squares condition served as a no-motion baseline.
Figure 2Mapping stimuli, Regions of interest (ROIs) and Results.
Three ROIs were defined using flickering checkerboard corresponding to the path of curved motion (A) and the path of linear motion (B). In addition, we defined a control ROI as the mirror image of the curved path (C). The retinotopic maps produced by the retinotopic mapping procedure (D–E). The cortical representations of the three ROIs are shown on the flattened cortex of subject GJ (F–G). The ROI shown in red corresponds to the path-guided motion, the ROI shown in blue corresponds to the linear motion, and the ROI shown in green corresponds to the control region. The average volume of each ROI is shown in H. (I) Beta estimates within the ROI of the linear path: lAM activity is statistically higher than in the Flicker condition (t8 = 2.42, p = 0.042). (J) Beta estimates within the ROI of path-guided motion: pgAM activity is statistically higher than Flicker activity (t8 = 3.84, p = 0.005), Cue activity (t8 = 2.36, p = 0.046), and lAM activity (t8 = 2.94, p = 0.019). (K) Changes in BOLD signal within the control ROI: activity is not significant for all conditions. Vertical bars represent the standard error of the mean and stars highlight beta estimates significantly different from 0.
Pre-defined statistical comparisons.
| p-value | t statistic | d.f. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.042 | 2.42 | 8 | |
| 0.16 | 1.55 | 8 | |
| 0.005 | 3.84 | 8 | |
| 0.046 | 2.36 | 8 | |
| 0.019 | 2.94 | 8 |
The above paired t-tests were computed to investigate differences between experimental conditions. In the linear path ROI, we compared lAM with Flicker, and lAM with pgAM. In the curved path ROI, we compared pgAM with Flicker, pgAM with Cue, and pgAM with lAM.