Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Motion”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources

Magnetic response of human extrastriate cortex in the detection of coherent and incoherent motion.

Although direction selectivity is a cardinal property of neurons in the visual motion detection system, movement of numerous elements without global direction (incoherent motion) has been shown to activate human and monkey visual systems, as does coherent motion which has global direction. We used magnetoencephalography to investigate the neural process underlying responses to these types of motions in the human extrastriate cortex. Both motions were created using a random dot kinematogram and four speeds (0, 0.6, 9.6 and 25 degrees /s). The visual stimuli were composed of two successive motions at different speeds; a coherent motion at a certain speed that changed to incoherent motion at another speed or vice versa. Magnetic responses to the change in motion consisted of a few components, the first of which was always largest. The peak latency of the first component was inversely related to the speed of the preceding motion, but for both motions it was not affected by the speed of the subsequent motion. For each subject, the estimated origin of the first component was always in the extrastriate cortex, and this changed with the speed of the preceding motion. For both motions, the location for the slower preceding motion was lateral to that for the faster preceding motion. Although the latency changes of the two motions differed, their overall response properties were markedly similar. These findings show that the speed of incoherent motion is represented in the human extrastriate cortex neurons to the same degree as coherent motion. We consider that the human visual system has a distinct neural mechanism to perceive random dots' motion even though they do not move in a specific direction as a whole.

Adult↗

Detection of patient motion during tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging.

We compared the effectiveness of four methods for detecting patient motion during tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging: visual inspection of a cine of the raw data, cross-correlation, diverging squares and a new method called two-dimensional fit. The methods were evaluated for their ability to detect the presence of motion, localize the camera angle at which motion occurred and measure the distance of motion. Patient motion was simulated by shifting motion-free images and then masking their periphery so that the field of view did not move on the image matrix. None of the methods detected 3.25 mm of motion with clinically useful accuracies. Visual inspection, cross-correlation and two-dimensional fit most accurately detected axial patient motion (p < 0.05), whereas cross-correlation most accurately detected lateral motion (p < 0.05). For axial motion, cross-correlation and two-dimensional fit most accurately localized the camera angle at which patient motion occurred (p < 0.05). For lateral motion, cross-correlation most accurately localized patient motion (p < 0.05). Two-dimensional fit measured the distance of axial patient motion to +/- 1.1 mm and measured the distance of lateral motion to +/- 8.7 mm. All other methods frequently overestimated or underestimated the distance of motion by > 13 mm. We conclude that cross-correlation adequately screens tomographic myocardial perfusion studies for both axial and lateral patient motion, although visual inspection is adequate for detection of axial motion. Cross-correlation best localizes the camera angle at which the motion occurred. Two-dimensional fit is the only method studied that accurately measures the distance of motion.

Coronary Disease↗

Response of Charité total disc replacement under physiologic loads: prosthesis component motion patterns.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Total disc replacement (TDR) has been recommended to reduce pain of presumed discogenic origin while preserving spinal motion. The floating core of Charité TDR is professed to allow the replication of the kinematics of a healthy disc under physiologic loads. While segmental motion after Charité TDR has been measured, little is known about the effects of a physiologic compressive preload on vertebral motion and the motion of prosthesis components after TDR. PURPOSE: (1) Does Charité TDR allow restoration of normal load-displacement behavior of a lumbar motion segment under physiologic loads? (2) How do the prosthesis components move relative to each other under physiologic loads when implanted in a lumbar motion segment? STUDY DESIGN: A biomechanical study using human lumbar spines (L1-sacrum). METHODS: Five lumbar spines (age: 52+/-9.3) were used. Specimens were tested under flexion (8 Nm) and extension (6 Nm) moments with compressive follower preloads of 0 N and 400 N in the following sequence: (i) intact, (ii) Charité TDR at L5-S1, (iii) simulated healed fusion at L5-S1 with Charité TDR at L4-L5. Segmental motion was measured optoelectronically. Motions between prosthesis end plates and core were visually assessed using sequential digital video-fluoroscopy over the full range of motion. Here we report on kinematics of 10 Charité TDRs: 5 at L5-S1 and 5 at L4-L5. RESULTS: Charité TDR increased the flexion-extension range of motion of lumbar segments (p<.05). At 400 N preload, the range of motion increased from intact values of 6.8+/-4.4 to 10.0+/-2.4 degrees at L5-S1 and from 7.0+/-2.6 to 10.8+/-2.9 degrees at L4-L5. Charité TDR increased segmental lordosis by 8.1+/-6.9 degrees at L5-S1 (p<.05) and 5.4+/-3.5 degrees at L4-L5 (p<.05). Four patterns of prosthesis component motion were noted: (1) angular motion only between the upper end plate and core, with little or no visual evidence of core translation (9 of 10 TDRs at 0 N preload and 5 of 10 TDRs at 400 N preload); (2) lift-off of upper prosthesis end plate from core or of core from lower end plate (observed in extension in 9 of 10 TDRs under 0 N preload only); (3) core entrapment, resulting in a locked core over a portion of the range of motion (observed in extension in 8 of 10 TDRs under 400 N preload); (4) angular motion between both the upper and lower end plates and core, with visual evidence of core translation (1 of 10 TDRs at 0 N preload, 5 of 10 TDRs at 400 N preload). The pattern of load-displacement curves was substantially changed under a physiologic preload in 8 of 10 TDRs; instead of a relatively gradual change in angle with changing moment application as seen for an intact segment, the TDR displayed regions of both relatively small and relatively large angular changes with gradual moment application. CONCLUSIONS: Charité TDR restored near normal quantity of flexion-extension range of motion under a constant physiologic preload; however, the quality of segmental motion differed from the intact case over the flexion-extension range. Whereas some TDRs showed visual evidence of core translation, the predominant angular motion within the prosthesis occurred between the upper end plate and the polyethylene core. Likely factors affecting the function of the Charité TDR include implant placement and orientation, intraoperative change in lordosis, and magnitude of physiologic compressive preload. Further work is needed to assess the effects of the prosthesis motion patterns identified in the study on the load sharing at the implanted level and polyethylene core wear.

Aged↗

Motion direction signals in the primary visual cortex of cat and monkey.

When an image feature moves with sufficient speed it should become smeared across space, due to temporal integration in the visual system, effectively creating a spatial motion pattern that is oriented in the direction of the motion. Recent psychophysical evidence shows that such "motion streak signals" exist in the human visual system. In this study, we report neurophysiological evidence that these motion streak signals also exist in the primary visual cortex of cat and monkey. Single neuron responses were recorded for two kinds of moving stimuli: single spots presented at different velocities and drifting plaid patterns presented at different spatial and temporal frequencies. Measurements were made for motion perpendicular to the spatial orientation of the receptive field ("perpendicular motion") and for motion parallel to the spatial orientation of the receptive field ("parallel motion"). For moving spot stimuli, as the speed increases, the ratio of the responses to parallel versus perpendicular motion increases, and above some critical speed, the response to parallel motion exceeds the response to perpendicular motion. For moving plaid patterns, the average temporal tuning function is approximately the same for both parallel motion and perpendicular motion; in contrast, the spatial tuning function is quite different for parallel motion and perpendicular motion (band pass for the former and low pass for the latter). In general, the responses to spots and plaids are consistent with the conventional model of cortical neurons with one rather surprising exception: Many cortical neurons appear to be direction selective for parallel motion. We propose a simple explanation for "parallel motion direction selectivity" and discuss its implications for the motion streak hypothesis. Taken as a whole, we find that the measured response properties of cortical neurons to moving spot and plaid patterns agree with the recent psychophysics and support the hypothesis that motion streak signals are present in V1.

Animals↗

Cineradiographic motion analysis of normal lumbar spine during forward and backward flexion.

STUDY DESIGN: Motion characteristics of the lumbar spine in the sagittal plane were investigated in vivo using cineradiography. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the differences in motion characteristics of the normal lumbar spine between forward and backward flexion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite previous lumbar kinematic studies, differences in motion characteristics of the lumbar spine between forward and backward flexion remain unclear. METHODS: Cineradiographic motion analysis was performed in 10 asymptomatic healthy male volunteers for two different lumbar motions. The motions consisted of active forward flexion (from maximum extension to maximum flexion) and active backward flexion (from maximum flexion to maximum extension). Displacements of the anterior and posterior vertebral corners from L3/L4 to L5/S1 were measured continuously in reference to the local coordinate system. Parameters investigated were onset of segmental motion, velocity of segmental motion, and continuous motion profiles of the vertebral corners during the two different motions. RESULTS: During forward flexion, initial lumbar motion started stepwise from the upper level (L3/L4) to the lower levels with phase lags. Angular velocity at the onset of motion increased as the level descended. On the contrary, during backward flexion, initial motion started from the lower level (L5/S1) to the upper levels. There was no relation between velocity and spinal levels during backward flexion. Motion profiles of both anterior and posterior vertebral corners at L3/L4 and L4/L5 segments during forward flexion were similar to those during backward flexion. However, the motion profiles at L5/S1 segment during forward flexion were different from those during backward flexion. CONCLUSIONS: During forward flexion of the lumbar spine, initial motion started from upper segments to the lower segments with phase lags. During backward flexion, initial motion started from the lower segments to the upper segments. Motion profiles of the vertebral corners during forward flexion were similar to those during backward flexion at L3/L4 and L4/L5. The motion profiles at L5/S1 were different between both flexions.

Adult↗

Using cineradiography for continuous dynamic-motion analysis of the lumbar spine.

STUDY DESIGN: Cineradiography was used to analyze continuous dynamic motion in the lumbar spine. OBJECTIVES: To identify motion patterns of the lumbar spine in asymptomatic volunteers and symptomatic patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis, and to use the findings to discuss segmental instability in this disorder. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of radiographic findings to assess lumbar spine instability remains controversial. Although some studies have reported on lumbar kinematics during actual movement, the motion patterns in asymptomatic volunteers and symptomatic patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis have not been fully clarified. METHODS: While asymptomatic volunteers (n=20; mean age, 27; control group) and symptomatic patients with L4 degenerative spondylolisthesis (n=41; mean age, 63; degenerative spondylolisthesis [DS] group) flexed from a sitting neutral position and back to the neutral position (flexion course), cineradiography was used to record lateral segmental lumbar motions. Twelve frames were selected during the flexion course, and flexion-extension angle (f-e angle) and translation in the sagittal plane were measured at each motion segment (L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1). The DS group was classified into 2 subgroups according to percentage of slip: DS group I, with a slip equal to or less than 15%; and DS group II, with a slip of more than 15%. The motion pattern was compared between the groups. RESULTS: In the control group, f-e angle and translation at the L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 segments moved simultaneously, although the L5-S1 segment showed an initial delay. The amount of f-e angle and translation changed almost symmetrically. In both f-e angle and translation, the L4-L5 segment showed a large motion pattern. In DS group I (n=21), the L4-L5 segment showed a large motion pattern in f-e angle and an intermediate motion pattern in translation. In DS group II (n=20), the L4-L5 segment showed an intermediate motion pattern in f-e angle, and a small motion pattern in translation. The relative range of f-e angle at the L4-L5 segment had the largest range in DS group I, and the relative translation showed a serial decrease from the control group through DS group II. A significant correlation between f-e angle and translation (harmonious motion pattern) was noted at the L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 segments in the control group. The harmonious motion pattern at the L4-L5 segment was significantly less in the DS group than in the control group. The loss of harmonious motion pattern (disordered motion pattern) at L4-L5 was well-revealed in the DS group II. CONCLUSIONS: Motion analyses using cineradiography helped to explain the phenomena of lumbar spine kinematics. Based on continuous dynamic-motion analysis with cineradiography, large f-e angle and disordered motion pattern during the flexion-backward course in the DS group I was considered to be caused by segmental instability. The decreased translation and disordered motion pattern throughout the flexion course in the DS group II was considered to be caused by restabilization.

Adult↗

Relationship between clinical measurements and motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint during gait.

BACKGROUND: The range of joint motion is a commonly reported outcome measure in assessment of the great toe. Although motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint during gait is of primary functional importance, clinicians rely on relatively static clinical measures to assess this joint. The relationship between the results of commonly used clinical tests of motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and motion of this joint during gait was assessed in a study of thirty-three subjects who had no history of a pathological condition of the foot or ankle. METHODS: An electromagnetic tracking device was used to acquire three-dimensional orientation data on the hallux with respect to the first metatarsal. Receivers were secured to the skin overlying the proximal phalanx of the hallux, the first metatarsal, and the medial aspect of the calcaneus. Measurements were recorded during four clinical tests. These tests assessed the active range of motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint with the subject weight-bearing, the passive range of motion with the subject weight-bearing, the passive range of motion with the subject non-weight-bearing, and the motion during a heel-rise. The data collected with these tests were compared with motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint during walking. The focus of the analysis was the dorsiflexion component of rotation. RESULTS: With the exception of the passive range of motion with the subject weight-bearing, the ranges of motion measured during all of the clinical tests exceeded the motion of the first metatarsal joint that is required during normal walking. The motion measured during heel-rise (r = 0.87, p < 0.001) and the active range of motion with the subject weight-bearing (r = 0.80, p < 0.001) had the strongest correlations with motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint during gait. The mean dorsiflexion during the test of the active range of motion (44 degrees) was closer to the mean dorsiflexion during gait (42 degrees) than was the mean value measured during the heel-rise test (58 degrees). This study also demonstrated that the clinical tests are not interchangeable as their mean results differed by as much as 21 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: The selection of a reliable and valid clinical test and an understanding of the relationship of the results of this test to the motion requirements during normal gait will help to standardize reporting techniques and will improve the ability of the clinician to determine the outcomes of treatment. This study showed that measurement of the active range of motion with the subject weight-bearing was a reliable and valid test and that the results were strongly correlated with motion of the first metatarsophalangeal joint during gait.

Adult↗

Motion detection and correction for dynamic ( 15)O-water myocardial perfusion PET studies.

PURPOSE: Patient motion during dynamic PET studies is a well-documented source of errors. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of frame-to-frame motion in dynamic ( 15)O-water myocardial perfusion PET studies, to test the efficacy of motion correction methods and to study whether implementation of motion correction would have an impact on the perfusion results. METHODS: We developed a motion detection procedure using external radioactive skin markers and frame-to-frame alignment. To evaluate motion, marker coordinates inside the field of view were determined in each frame for each study. The highest number of frames with identical spatial coordinates during the study were defined as "non-moved". Movement was considered present if even one marker changed position, by one pixel/frame compared with reference, in one axis, and such frames were defined as "moved". We tested manual, in-house-developed motion correction software and an automatic motion correction using a rigid body point model implemented in MIPAV (Medical Image Processing, Analysis and Visualisation) software. After motion correction, remaining motion was re-analysed. Myocardial blood flow (MBF) values were calculated for both non-corrected and motion-corrected datasets. RESULTS: At rest, patient motion was found in 18% of the frames, but during pharmacological stress the fraction increased to 45% and during physical exercise it rose to 80%. Both motion correction algorithms significantly decreased (p<0.006) the number of moved frames and the amplitude of motion (p<0.04). Motion correction significantly increased MBF results during bicycle exercise (p<0.02). At rest or during adenosine infusion, the motion correction had no significant effects on MBF values. CONCLUSION: Significant motion is a common phenomenon in dynamic cardiac studies during adenosine infusion but especially during exercise. Applying motion correction for the data acquired during exercise clearly changed the MBF results, indicating that motion correction is required for these studies.

Adult↗

Smooth-pursuit eye movements elicited by first-order and second-order motion.

The perception of the displacement of luminance-defined contours (i.e., first-order motion) is an important and well-examined function of the visual system. It can be explained, for example, by the operation of elementary motion detectors (EMDs), which cross-correlate the spatiotemporal luminance distribution. More recent studies using second-order motion stimuli, i.e., shifts of the distribution of features such as contrast, texture, flicker, or motion, extended classic concepts of motion perception by including nonlinear or hierarchical processing in the EMD. Smooth-pursuit eye movements can be used as a direct behavioral probe for motion processing. The ability of the visual system to extract motion signals from the spatiotemporal changes of the retinal image can be addressed by analyzing the elicited eye movements. We measured the eye movement response to moving objects defined by two different types of first-order motion and two different types of second-order motion. Our results clearly showed that the direction of smooth-pursuit eye movements was always determined by the direction of object motion. In particular, in the case of second-order motion stimuli, smooth-pursuit did not follow the retinal image motion. The latency of the initial saccades during pursuit of second-order stimuli was slightly but significantly increased, compared with the latency of saccades elicited by first-order motion. The processing of second-order motion in the peripheral visual field was less exact than the processing of first-order motion in the peripheral field. Steady state smooth-pursuit eye speed did not reflect the velocity of second-order motion as precisely as that of first-order motion, and the resulting retinal error was compensated by saccades. Interestingly, for slow second-order stimuli we observed that the eye could move faster than the target, leading to small, corrective saccades in the opposite direction to the ongoing smooth-pursuit eye movement. We conclude from our results that both visual perception and the control of smooth-pursuit eye movements have access to processing mechanisms extracting first- and second-order motion.

Fixation, Ocular↗

The analysis of motion of two-dimensional patterns: do Fourier components provide the first stage?

Human observers were required to report the direction of motion of simple two-dimensional (2-D) "plaid" patterns made by adding together two sinusoidal gratings of identical contrast (0.5 or 1.5 log units above threshold), spatial frequency (1 or 5 c/deg) and orthogonal orientations (horizontal and vertical, or +/- 45 deg). The patterns were made to move either by moving both gratings at the same speed (pattern motion) or by moving one component with the other stationary (component motion). In one task (direction discrimination) the observer knew the axis of motion, and was required to discriminate the direction of motion along that axis in a temporal two-alternative forced-choice paradigm; in the other task (direction identification) the observer did not know the axis of motion and was required to identify the direction of motion and the axis of motion. In both tasks the discrimination of pattern motion was consistently better than the discrimination of component motion, contrary to the predictions of the "two-stage" model of motion analysis, in which it is assumed that the motion of a 2-D pattern is calculated from the 1-D motions of its Fourier components. The variation in direction discrimination of pattern motion with speed did not have the form predicted under the assumption that the direction of motion of the pattern could be discriminated using the motion of either of its two component gratings. Finally, an elaborated version of the Adelson and Movshon [(1982) Nature, 300, 523-525] two-stage model, in which noise affects the two stages fails to predict the performance in identifying the pattern motion of the plaid pattern, except for 1 c/deg low contrast plaids. These results suggest that when 2-D patterns contain moderately high contrasts or high spatial frequencies observers may use other attributes, instead of, or in addition to Fourier components, to analyse their 2-D motion.

Discrimination, Psychological↗

Minimum displacement thresholds for binocular three-dimensional motion.

Thresholds for the detection of motion in depth in the median plane of the head are substantially poorer than those for motion in the frontoparallel plane. This suggests the existence of two independent mechanisms for their detection. Any three-dimensional (3-D) motion can be decomposed into components of motion in the frontoparallel plane and in the median plane of the head. Can human performance for the detection and discrimination of other 3-D motions be predicted by a combination of responses from the two independent mechanisms? Minimum displacement thresholds (d(min)) for the detection of 3-D motion and the direction discrimination of 3-D motion were measured for a wide range of 3-D directions. d(min) data were modelled in terms of the probability summation of a pair of independent motion mechanisms, one responding to motion in the median plane of the head, the second to motion in the frontoparallel plane. Detection of 3-D motion was well predicted by probability summation across a range of 3-D directions. Direction discrimination of 3-D motion was similarly well fit by the probability summation model for multiframe motion displays for some observers. However for two-frame motion displays, direction discrimination for 3-D motion was best fit by a model using only a motion mechanism in the frontoparallel plane. Detection and direction discrimination thresholds for 3-D motion can therefore be explained on the basis of one or two mechanisms, sensitive to motion in the frontoparallel plane and in the median plane of the head.

Depth Perception↗

The mechanism of isoluminant chromatic motion perception.

An isoluminant chromatic display is a color display in which the component colors have been so carefully equated in luminance that they stimulate only color-sensitive perceptual mechanisms and not luminance-sensitive mechanisms. The nature of the mechanism by which isoluminant chromatic motion is perceived is an important issue because color and motion processing historically have been associated with different neural pathways. Here we show that isoluminant chromatic motion (i) fails a pedestal test, (ii) has a temporal tuning function that declines to half-amplitude at 3-6 Hz, and (iii) is perceived equally well when the entire motion sequence is presented monocularly (entire motion sequence to one eye) versus interocularly (the frames of motion sequence alternate between eyes so that neither eye individually could perceive motion). These three characteristics indicate that chromatic motion is detected by the third-order motion system. Based on this theory, it was possible to take a moving isoluminant red-green grating and, by simply increasing the chromatic contrast of the green component, to generate the full gamut of motion percepts, from compelling smooth motion to motion standstill. The perception of motion standstill when the third-order mechanism is nullified indicates that there is no other motion computation available for purely chromatic motion. It follows that isoluminant chromatic motion is not computed by specialized chromatic motion mechanisms within a color pathway but by the third-order motion system at a brain level where binocular inputs of form, color, depth, and texture are simultaneously available and where selective attention can exert a major influence.

Calibration↗

Visual motion processing in the anterior ectosylvian sulcus of the cat.

1. Neurons that are selectively sensitive to the direction of motion of elongated contours have been found in several cortical areas in many species. However, in the striate cortex of the cat and monkey, and the extrastriate posteromedial lateral suprasylvian visual area of the cat, such cells are generally component motion selective, signaling only the direction of movement orthogonal to the preferred orientation; a direction that is not necessarily the same as the motion of the entire pattern or texture of which the cell's preferred contour is part. The primate extrastriate middle temporal area is the only cortical region currently known to contain a substantial population of pattern-motion-selective cells that respond to the shared vector of motion of mixtures of contours. 2. From analyzing published data on the connectivity of the cat's cortex, we predicted that the anterior ectosylvian visual area (AEV), situated within the anterior ectosylvian sulcus, might be a higher-order motion processing area and thus likely to contain pattern-motion-selective neurons. This paper presents the results of a study on neuronal responses in AEV. 3. Ninety percent of AEV cells that responded strongly to drifting grating and/or plaid stimuli were directionally selective (directionality index > 0.5). For this group, the mean directionality index was 0.75. Moreover, 55% of these cells were unequivocally classified as pattern motion selective and only one neuron was classified as definitely component motion selective. Thus high-level pattern motion coding occurs in the cat extrastriate cortex and is not limited to the primate middle temporal area. 4. AEV contains a heterogeneous population of directionally selective cells. There was no clear relation between the degree of directional selectivity for plaids or gratings and the degree of selectivity for pattern motion or component motion. Nevertheless, 28% of the highly responsive cells were both more strongly modulated by plaids than gratings and more pattern motion selective than component motion selective. Such cells could correspond to a population of "selection units" signaling the salience of local motion information. 5. AEV lacks global retinotopic order but the preferred direction of motion of neurons (rather than axis of motion, as in the middle temporal area and the posteromedial lateral suprasylvian visual area) is mapped systematically across the cortex. Our data are compatible with AEV being a nonretinotopic, feature-mapped area in which cells representing similar parts of "motion space" are brought together on the cortical sheet.

Animals↗

The repeatablity of spinal motion of normal and scoliotic adolescents during walking.

The main aim of this study was to assess the within-day repeatability of measuring trunk and spinal motion during walking using external markers and a motion analysis system. A secondary aim was to compare the repeatability of motion between the scoliotic and normal spine. The sagittal and coronal plane trunk and spinal motion, three-dimensional pelvic and shoulder motion of 9 normal and 19 scoliotic adolescents was assessed. Intra-subject within-day repeatability was evaluated using waveform similarity statistics. Trunk sagittal and coronal plane motion was fairly repeatable. Repeatability of spinal frontal plane motion was fair, but that of sagittal plane motion is poor. Pelvic coronal and transverse plane motion was very reproducible but pelvic sagittal plane motion was very variable. Shoulder motion in all three planes was found to have a poor level of repeatability. A relationship possibly exists between the range of motion and repeatability values. Although the scoliotic adolescents had less variable spinal motion, differences from the normal subjects were not statistically significant. However, the scoliotic subjects had significantly more repeatable sagittal and coronal plane pelvic motion and coronal plane shoulder motion. The results of this study suggest that trunk sagittal and coronal plane motion and spinal coronal plane motion of normal and scoliotic adolescents can be reliably measured within a single test session.

Adolescent↗

Directional performance in motion transparency.

Motion transparency provides a challenging test case for our understanding of how visual motion, and other attributes, are computed and represented in the brain. However, previous studies of visual transparency have used subjective criteria which do not confirm the existence of independent representations of the superimposed motions. We have developed measures of performance in motion transparency that require observers to extract information about two motions jointly, and therefore test the information that is simultaneously represented for each motion. Observers judged whether two motions were at 90 degrees to one another; the base direction was randomized so that neither motion taken alone was informative. The precision of performance was determined by the standard deviations (S.D.s) of probit functions fitted to the data. Observers also made judgments of orthogonal directions between a single motion stream and a line, for one of two transparent motions against a line and for two spatially segregated motions. The data show that direction judgments with transparency can be made with comparable accuracy to segregated (non-transparent) conditions, supporting the idea that transparency involves the equivalent representation of two global motions in the same region. The precision of this joint direction judgment is, however, 2-3 times poorer than that for a single motion stream. The precision in directional judgment for a single stream is reduced only by a factor of about 1.5 by superimposing a second stream. The major effect in performance, therefore, appears to be associated with the need to compute and compare two global representations of motion, rather than with interference between the dot streams per se. Experiment 2 tested the transparency of motions separated by a range of angles from 5 degrees to 180 degrees by requiring subjects to set a line matching the perceived direction of each motion. The S.D.s of these settings demonstrated that directions of transparent motions were represented independently for separations over 20 degrees. Increasing dot speeds from 1 to 10 deg/s improved directional performance but had no effect on transparency perception. Transparency was also unaffected by variations of density between 0.1 and 19 dots/deg(2)

Discrimination, Psychological↗

Integration of form and motion in the anterior superior temporal polysensory area (STPa) of the macaque monkey.

1. Processing of visual information in primates is believed to occur in at least two separate cortical pathways, commonly labeled the "form" and "motion" pathways. This division lies in marked contrast to our everyday visual experience, in which we have a unified percept of both the form and motion of objects, implying integration of both types of information. We report here on a neuronal population in the anterior part of the superior temporal polysensory area (STPa) both sensitive to form (heads and bodies) and selective for motion direction. 2. A total of 161 cells were found to be sensitive to body form and motion. The majority of cells (125 of 161, 78%) responded to only one combination of view and direction (termed unimodal cells, e.g., left profile view moving left, not right profile moving left, or left profile moving right). We show that the response of some of these cells is selective for both the motion and the form of a single object, not simply the juxtaposition of appropriate form and motion signals. 3. A smaller number of cells (9 of 161, 6%) responded selectively to two opposite combinations of view and direction (e.g., left profile moving left and right profile moving right, but no other view and direction combinations). A few cells (4 of 161, 2%) showed "object-centered" selectivity to view and direction combinations, responding to all directions of motion where the body moves in a direction compatible with the direction it faces, for example, responding to left profile going left, right profile going right, face view moving toward the observer, back view moving away from the observer, but not other view and direction combinations. 4. The majority of the neurons (106 of 138, 77%) selective for specific body view and direction combinations responded best to compatible motion (e.g., left profile moving left), and one fourth (23%) showed selectivity for incompatible motion (e.g., right profile moving left). 5. The relative strengths of motion and form inputs to cells in STPa conjointly sensitive to information about form and motion were assessed. The majority of the responses (95%) were characterized as showing nonlinear summation of form and motion inputs. 6. The capacity to discriminate different directions and different forms was compared across three populations of STPa cells, namely those sensitive to 1) form only, 2) motion only, and 3) both form and motion. The selectivity of the latter class could be predicted from combinations of the other two classes. 7. The response latencies of cells selective for form and motion are on average coincident with cells selective for direction of motion (but not stimulus form). Both these cell populations have response latencies on average 20 ms earlier than cells selective for static form. 8. Calculation of the average of early response latency cells (cell whose response latency was under the sample mean) suggests that direction information is present in cell responses some 35 ms before form information becomes evident. Direction information and form information become evident within 5 ms of each other in the average late response latency cells (those cells whose response latency was greater than the sample mean). Inputs relating to movement show an initial response period that does not discriminate direction. The quality of initial direction discrimination appeared to be independent of response latency. The initial discrimination of form was related to response latency in that cells with longer response latencies showed greater initial discrimination of form in their responses. We argue that these findings are consistent with form inputs arriving to area STPa approximately 20 ms after motion inputs into area STPa.

Animals↗

Second-order motion perception in the peripheral visual field.

In motion perception, luminance-defined stimuli (first-order motion) are distinguished from stimuli defined by more complex attributes (second-order motion), because they differ in their processing requirements. For instance, a two-layer model with the output of an array of elementary motion detectors (EMD's) feeding into a second array of EMD's has been proposed to account for seeing the movement of motion-defined objects. The question is raised whether this processing scheme is operating across the whole visual field or whether second-order motion perception is restricted to the fovea. The detection, orientation discrimination, and motion direction discrimination of oblique, vertically moving bars was tested at horizontal eccentricities between 0 degree and 16 degrees. Bars were defined on a dynamic noise background by an area of static dots (drift-balanced motion) or by coherent dot motion either in the direction of the bar motion (Fourier motion) or in the orthogonal direction (theta motion). Coherence thresholds for direction discrimination are severely impaired in the periphery for both types of second-order motion but not for Fourier motion, whereas orientation discrimination and detection marginally decline for all three bar types when the stimuli are presented further out in the periphery. In a control experiment it is shown that this result cannot be due entirely to the changes in spatial scale of the peripheral visual system. The facts that motion-defined objects can be detected in the periphery and that their orientation can be detected, but not their direction of motion, supports the view that the two-layer system suggested for the processing of theta motion is restricted to the central region of the visual field.

Adult↗

Analysis of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending in subjects with and without a history of low back pain.

STUDY DESIGN: This study analyzed two groups of subjects during forward bending. Group 1 (n = 20) contained subjects with a history of low back pain and Group 2 (n = 21) included subjects without a history of low back pain. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to establish the amount and pattern of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending, and determine differences in motion in subjects with and without a history of low back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Reported values for lumbar spine motion during forward bending vary from 23.9 degrees to 60 degrees and hip motion during forward bending ranges from 26 degrees to 66 degrees. There has been no direct study of both lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending in subjects with and without a history of low back pain to establish differences in total amounts or pattern of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending. METHODS: A three-dimensional optoelectric motion analysis system was used to measure the amount and velocity of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending. Each subject performed three trials of forward bending that were averaged and used for statistical analysis. Hamstring flexibility was also assessed by two clinical tests, the passive straight leg raising and active knee extension tests. RESULTS: Mean total forward bending for all subjects was 111 degrees: 41.6 degrees from the lumbar spine and 69.4 degrees from the hips. There were no group differences for total amounts of lumbar spine and hip motion or velocity during forward bending. The pattern of motion was described by calculating lumbar-to-hip flexion ratios for early (0-30 degrees), middle (30-60 degrees), and late (60-90 degrees) forward bending. For all subjects, mean lumbar-to-hip ratios for early, middle, and late forward bending were 1.9, 0.9, and 0.4, respectively. Therefore, the lumbar spine had a greater contribution to early forward bending, the lumbar spine and hips contributed almost equally to middle forward bending, and the hips had a greater contribution to late forward bending. A t test revealed a difference between groups for the pattern of motion. Group 1 tended to move more at their lumbar spine during early forward bending and had a significantly lower lumbar-to-hip flexion ratio during middle forward bending (P < 0.01). Hamstring flexibility was strongly correlated to motion in subjects with a history of low back pain, but not in healthy subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide quantitative data to guide clinical assessment of forward bending motion. Results also suggest that although people with a history of low back pain have amounts of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending similar to those of healthy subjects, the pattern of motion is different. It may be desirable to teach patients with a history of low back pain to use more hip motion during early forward bending, and hamstring stretching may be helpful for encouraging earlier hip motion.

Adult↗