The brain as film director.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Journal Article↗
Biomedical subjects
J Culham
Publications and source records attributed to J Culham.
Visual motion and the human brain: what has neuroimaging told us?
Recently, neuroimaging techniques have been applied to the study of human motion perception, complementing established techniques such as psychophysics, neurophysiology and neuropsychology. Because vision, particularly motion perception, has been studied relatively extensively, it provides an interesting case study to examine the contributions and limitations of neuroimaging to cognitive neuroscience. We suggest that in the domain of motion perception neuroimaging has: (1) revealed an extensive network of motion areas throughout the human brain, in addition to the well-studied motion complex (MT+); (2) verified and extended findings from other techniques; (3) suggested extensive top-down influences on motion perception; and (4) allowed experimenters to examine the neural correlates of awareness. We discuss these contributions, along with limitations and future directions for the neuroimaging of motion.
Attention↗
Systematic eye movements do not account for the perception of motion during attentive tracking.
It has been suggested that attention can disambiguate stimuli that have equal motion energy in opposite directions (e.g. a counterphasing grating), such that a clear motion direction is perceived. The direction of this movement is determined by the observer and can be changed at will. Assuming that the responses of front-end motion detectors are equal for the two opponent directions, it has been proposed that the unambiguous motion perceived with attentive tracking arises from an independent mechanism that monitors the shifts of attention directed to the moving feature of interest. However, while perceiving motion under attentive tracking conditions, observers often report a strong impression that they are making eye movements. In this study, we investigated whether systematic eye movements are present during attentive tracking and, as a result, could be responsible for the subjective experience of movement. We had observers track an object in smooth motion, apparent motion and ambiguous motion, either with eye movements or with attention. The results show that there are negligible eye movements during attentive tracking, which are neither systematic nor correlated with the stimulus. Given that neither eye movements nor retinal image motion can account for subjectively perceived motion, as well as the absence of any other plausible explanation, we find it tempting evidence for an earlier suggestion that the percept of movement must arise from a specialized mechanism.
Attention↗