motion discrimination
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

219
(FIVE YEARS 30)

H-INDEX

28
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2021 ◽  
Vol 188 ◽  
pp. 96-114
Author(s):  
Boris Peñaloza ◽  
Michael H. Herzog ◽  
Haluk Öğmen

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Reinagel

When subjects control the duration of sampling a sensory stimulus before making a decision, they generally take more time to make more difficult sensory discriminations. This has been found to be true of many rats performing visual tasks. But two rats performing visual motion discrimination were found to have inverted chronometric response functions: their average response time paradoxically increased with stimulus strength. We hypothesize that corrective decision reversals may underlie this unexpected observation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 2186
Author(s):  
Gouki Okazawa ◽  
Christina Hatch ◽  
Allan Mancoo ◽  
Christian Machens ◽  
Roozbeh Kiani

Author(s):  
Jinfeng Huang ◽  
Alexander Yu ◽  
Yifeng Zhou ◽  
Zili Liu

AbstractWe investigated the eight decision rules for a same-different task, as summarized in Petrov (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(6), 1011–1025, 2009). These rules, including the differencing (DF) rule and the optimal independence rule, are all based on the standard model in signal detection theory. Each rule receives two stimulus values as inputs and uses one or two decision criteria. We proved that the false alarm rate p(F) ≤ 1/2 for four of the rules. We also conducted a same-different rating experiment on motion discrimination (n = 54), with 4∘ or 8∘ directional difference. We found that the human receiver operating characteristic (ROC) spanned its full range [0,1] in p(F), thus rejecting these four rules. The slope of the human Z-ROC was also < 1, further confirming that the independence rule was not used. We subsequently fitted in the four-dimensional (pAA, pAB, pBA, pBB) space the human data to the remaining four rules—DF and likelihood ratio rules, each with one or two criteria, where pXY = p(responding “different” given stimulus sequence XY). We found that, using residual distribution analysis, only the two criteria DF rule (DF2) could account for the human data.


NeuroImage ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 118299
Author(s):  
Roberto F. SALAMANCA-GIRON ◽  
Estelle RAFFIN ◽  
Sarah B. ZANDVLIET ◽  
Martin SEEBER ◽  
Christoph M. MICHEL ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua A Seideman ◽  
Terrence R Stanford ◽  
Emilio Salinas

The lateral intraparietal area (LIP) contains spatially selective neurons that are partly responsible for determining where to look next, and are thought to serve a variety of sensory, motor planning, and cognitive control functions within this role1,2,3. Notably, according to numerous studies in monkeys4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, area LIP implements a fundamental perceptual process, the gradual accumulation of sensory evidence in favor of one choice (e.g., look left) over another (look right), which manifests as a slowly developing spatial signal during a motion discrimination task. However, according to recent inactivation experiments13,14, this signal is unnecessary for accurate task performance. Here we reconcile these contradictory findings. We designed an urgent version of the motion discrimination task in which there is no systematic lag between the perceptual evaluation and the motor action reporting it, and such that the evolution of the subject’s choice can be tracked millisecond by millisecond15,16,17,18. We found that while choice accuracy increased steeply with increasing sensory evidence, at the same time, the spatial signal became progressively weaker, as if it hindered performance. In contrast, in a similarly urgent task in which the discriminated stimuli and the choice targets were spatially coincident, the neural signal seemed to facilitate performance. The data suggest that the ramping activity in area LIP traditionally interpreted as evidence accumulation likely corresponds to a slow, post-decision shift of spatial attention from one location (where the motion occurs) to another (where the eyes land).


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-François Nankoo ◽  
Christopher R Madan ◽  
Omar Medina ◽  
Tyler Makepeace ◽  
Christopher L. Striemer

AbstractStudies have shown that the cerebellar vermis is involved in the perception of motion. However, it is unclear how the cerebellum influences motion perception. tDCS is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that can reduce (through cathodal stimulation) or increase neuronal excitability (through anodal stimulation). To explore the nature of the cerebellar involvement on large-field global motion perception (i.e., optic flow-like motion), we applied tDCS on the cerebellar midline while participants performed an optic flow motion discrimination task. Our results show that anodal tDCS improves discrimination threshold for optic flow perception, but only for left-right motion in contrast to up-down motion discrimination. This result was evident within the first 10 minutes of stimulation and was also found post-stimulation. Cathodal stimulation did not have any significant effects on performance in any direction. The results show that discrimination of planar optic flow can be improved with tDCS of the cerebellar midline and provide further support for the role of the human midline cerebellum in the perception of optic flow.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto F. Salamanca-Giron ◽  
Estelle Raffin ◽  
Sarah Bernardina Zandvliet ◽  
Martin Seeber ◽  
Christoph M. Michel ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTVisual motion discrimination involves reciprocal interactions in the alpha band between the primary visual cortex (V1) and the mediotemporal area (V5/MT). We investigated whether modulating alpha phase synchronization using individualized multisite transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) over V5 and V1 regions would improve motion discrimination. We tested 3 groups of healthy subjects: 1) an individualized In-Phase V1alpha-V5alpha tACS (0° lag) group, 2) an individualized Anti-Phase V1alpha-V5alpha tACS (180° lag) group and 3) a sham tACS group. Motion discrimination and EEG activity were compared before, during and after tACS. Performance significantly improved in the Anti-Phase group compared to that in the In-Phase group at 10 and 30 minutes after stimulation. This result could be explained by changes in bottom-up alpha-V1 gamma-V5 phase-amplitude coupling. Thus, Anti-Phase V1alpha-V5alpha tACS might impose an optimal phase lag between stimulation sites due to the inherent speed of wave propagation, hereby supporting optimized neuronal communication.IMPACT STATEMENTAlpha multisite (V1 and V5) tACS influences global motion discrimination and integrationPhase-amplitude coupling is associated with visual performanceMultisite Anti-Phase stimulation of strategic visual areas (V1 and V5) is associated with connectivity changes in the visual cortex and thus, associated with changes in direction acuity


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document