J. Cogn. Neurosci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lorteije, J. A. M.
Right arrow Articles by van Wezel, R. J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lorteije, J. A. M.
Right arrow Articles by van Wezel, R. J. A.
(Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2006;18:158-168.)
© 2006 The MIT Press

Delayed Response to Animate Implied Motion in Human Motion Processing Areas

Jeannette A. M. Lorteije1, J. Leon Kenemans1, Tjeerd Jellema1,2, Rob H. J. van der Lubbe1, Frederiek de Heer1 and Richard J. A. van Wezel1

1 Helmholtz Research Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 2 Hull University, United Kingdom

Reprint requests should be sent to Richard J. A. van Wezel, Department of Functional Neurobiology, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584CH Utrecht, The Netherlands, or via e-mail: R.J.A.vanWezel{at}bio.uu.nl.

Viewing static photographs of objects in motion evokes higher fMRI activation in the human medial temporal complex (MT+) than looking at similar photographs without this implied motion. As MT+ is traditionally thought to be involved in motion perception (and not in form perception), this finding suggests feedback from object-recognition areas onto MT+. To investigate this hypothesis, we recorded extracranial potentials evoked by the sight of photographs of biological agents with and without implied motion. The difference in potential between responses to pictures with and without implied motion was maximal between 260 and 400 msec after stimulus onset. Source analysis of this difference revealed one bilateral, symmetrical dipole pair in the occipital lobe. This area also showed a response to real motion, but approximately 100 msec earlier than the implied motion response. The longer latency of the implied motion response in comparison to the real motion response is consistent with a feedback projection onto MT+ following object recognition in higher-level temporal areas.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Cogn. Neurosci.Home page
M. Pavlova, A. N. Sokolov, N. Birbaumer, and I. Krageloh-Mann
Perception and understanding of others' actions and brain connectivity.
J. Cogn. Neurosci., March 1, 2008; 20(3): 494 - 504.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cogn. Neurosci.Home page
J. A. M. Lorteije, J. L. Kenemans, T. Jellema, R. H. J. van der Lubbe, M. W. Lommers, and R. J. A. van Wezel
Adaptation to Real Motion Reveals Direction-selective Interactions between Real and Implied Motion Processing.
J. Cogn. Neurosci., August 1, 2007; 19(8): 1231 - 1240.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurosci.Home page
C. Urgesi, V. Moro, M. Candidi, and S. M. Aglioti
Mapping implied body actions in the human motor system.
J. Neurosci., July 26, 2006; 26(30): 7942 - 7949.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEURAL COMPUTATION J COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE MIT PRESS JOURNALS
Copyright © 2006 by The MIT Press.