Limits...
TMS over V5 disrupts motion prediction.

Vetter P, Grosbras MH, Muckli L - Cereb. Cortex (2013)

Bottom Line: As in previous studies, we found that predictable in-time targets were better detected than unpredictable out-of-time targets.Our results are causal evidence that V5 is necessary for a prediction effect, which has been shown to modulate V1 activity (Alink et al. 2010).Thus, our findings suggest that information processing between V5 and V1 is crucial for visual motion prediction, providing experimental support for the predictive coding framework.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QB, UK Current address: Department of Neuroscience, Laboratory for Behavioral Neurology and Imaging of Cognition, Medical School and Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva 1205, Switzerland.

Show MeSH
Stimuli and experimental design. (A) Schematic depiction of the visual stimulus (not in scale). The apparent motion inducing stimuli flashed alternately at a frequency of 3.75 Hz in the periphery. We flashed targets on the apparent motion trace at either an upper or a lower position. (B) Space-time plot of on apparent motion cycle. Targets were flashed either in-time with the illusory motion token, that is, at the expected place and time assuming a linear motion trajectory, or out-of-time with the token, that is, spatio-temporally incongruently. (C) Time windows of TMS. We applied double-pulse TMS either before target onset (T1), around target onset (T2), shortly after target onset (T3), or slightly later (T4). The interpulse interval was 40 ms.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4380002&req=5

BHT297F1: Stimuli and experimental design. (A) Schematic depiction of the visual stimulus (not in scale). The apparent motion inducing stimuli flashed alternately at a frequency of 3.75 Hz in the periphery. We flashed targets on the apparent motion trace at either an upper or a lower position. (B) Space-time plot of on apparent motion cycle. Targets were flashed either in-time with the illusory motion token, that is, at the expected place and time assuming a linear motion trajectory, or out-of-time with the token, that is, spatio-temporally incongruently. (C) Time windows of TMS. We applied double-pulse TMS either before target onset (T1), around target onset (T2), shortly after target onset (T3), or slightly later (T4). The interpulse interval was 40 ms.

Mentions: Two apparent motion stimuli (white squares, 2.5° each, 14.8° vertical distance) were flashed in rapid succession (67 ms, interstimulus interval [ISI]: 67 ms, 3.75 Hz) at 8.5° to the right of the central fixation cross (0.06°, see Fig. 1A). The target (white square, 2°) was flashed for one frame of 13.3 ms at either an upper or lower position on the apparent motion trace (2.3° distance from the midline). The target was presented either spatio-temporally congruent with a linearly moving illusory token (in-time targets) or incongruent (out-of-time targets), that is, at the same time but at the wrong position (see Fig. 1B and Supplementary Video clips). Each cycle of apparent motion lasted 20 frames (267 ms): 5 frames of upper apparent motion stimulus, 5 frames ISI, 5 frames of lower apparent motion stimulus, and 5 frames ISI. The targets were displayed in either the second or the fourth frame of the ISI. Each trial consisted of 10 cycles of apparent motion, with the target flashed in cycles 4–6 (randomized). The target appeared equally often in either upward or downward apparent motion. Target timing and position were counter-balanced across trials. There was no intertrial interval and apparent motion stimulation continued for blocks of 16 trials without interruption. Thus, start and end of the individual trials were not perceptible for subjects. Only in TMS trials, the TMS pulse indicated the presence of a trial. After blocks of 16 trials (42.7 s), apparent motion was interrupted for 25 s with a natural scene display to prevent apparent motion breakdown due to adaptation and to give subjects a rest from TMS. The optimal target contrast was assessed for each individual by varying the gray level of the background in a brief behavioral pretest. Stimuli were presented on a 16-inch Dell Trinitron CRT monitor (75 Hz, resolution 1024 × 768).Figure 1.


TMS over V5 disrupts motion prediction.

Vetter P, Grosbras MH, Muckli L - Cereb. Cortex (2013)

Stimuli and experimental design. (A) Schematic depiction of the visual stimulus (not in scale). The apparent motion inducing stimuli flashed alternately at a frequency of 3.75 Hz in the periphery. We flashed targets on the apparent motion trace at either an upper or a lower position. (B) Space-time plot of on apparent motion cycle. Targets were flashed either in-time with the illusory motion token, that is, at the expected place and time assuming a linear motion trajectory, or out-of-time with the token, that is, spatio-temporally incongruently. (C) Time windows of TMS. We applied double-pulse TMS either before target onset (T1), around target onset (T2), shortly after target onset (T3), or slightly later (T4). The interpulse interval was 40 ms.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4380002&req=5

BHT297F1: Stimuli and experimental design. (A) Schematic depiction of the visual stimulus (not in scale). The apparent motion inducing stimuli flashed alternately at a frequency of 3.75 Hz in the periphery. We flashed targets on the apparent motion trace at either an upper or a lower position. (B) Space-time plot of on apparent motion cycle. Targets were flashed either in-time with the illusory motion token, that is, at the expected place and time assuming a linear motion trajectory, or out-of-time with the token, that is, spatio-temporally incongruently. (C) Time windows of TMS. We applied double-pulse TMS either before target onset (T1), around target onset (T2), shortly after target onset (T3), or slightly later (T4). The interpulse interval was 40 ms.
Mentions: Two apparent motion stimuli (white squares, 2.5° each, 14.8° vertical distance) were flashed in rapid succession (67 ms, interstimulus interval [ISI]: 67 ms, 3.75 Hz) at 8.5° to the right of the central fixation cross (0.06°, see Fig. 1A). The target (white square, 2°) was flashed for one frame of 13.3 ms at either an upper or lower position on the apparent motion trace (2.3° distance from the midline). The target was presented either spatio-temporally congruent with a linearly moving illusory token (in-time targets) or incongruent (out-of-time targets), that is, at the same time but at the wrong position (see Fig. 1B and Supplementary Video clips). Each cycle of apparent motion lasted 20 frames (267 ms): 5 frames of upper apparent motion stimulus, 5 frames ISI, 5 frames of lower apparent motion stimulus, and 5 frames ISI. The targets were displayed in either the second or the fourth frame of the ISI. Each trial consisted of 10 cycles of apparent motion, with the target flashed in cycles 4–6 (randomized). The target appeared equally often in either upward or downward apparent motion. Target timing and position were counter-balanced across trials. There was no intertrial interval and apparent motion stimulation continued for blocks of 16 trials without interruption. Thus, start and end of the individual trials were not perceptible for subjects. Only in TMS trials, the TMS pulse indicated the presence of a trial. After blocks of 16 trials (42.7 s), apparent motion was interrupted for 25 s with a natural scene display to prevent apparent motion breakdown due to adaptation and to give subjects a rest from TMS. The optimal target contrast was assessed for each individual by varying the gray level of the background in a brief behavioral pretest. Stimuli were presented on a 16-inch Dell Trinitron CRT monitor (75 Hz, resolution 1024 × 768).Figure 1.

Bottom Line: As in previous studies, we found that predictable in-time targets were better detected than unpredictable out-of-time targets.Our results are causal evidence that V5 is necessary for a prediction effect, which has been shown to modulate V1 activity (Alink et al. 2010).Thus, our findings suggest that information processing between V5 and V1 is crucial for visual motion prediction, providing experimental support for the predictive coding framework.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QB, UK Current address: Department of Neuroscience, Laboratory for Behavioral Neurology and Imaging of Cognition, Medical School and Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva 1205, Switzerland.

Show MeSH