Neuropsychological evidence for three distinct motion mechanisms

Visual motion serves but is not under the purview of the dorsal pathway

Visual motion processing is often attributed to the dorsal visual pathway despite visual motion's involvement in almost all visual functions. Furthermore, some visual motion tasks critically depend on the structural integrity of regions outside the dorsal pathway. Here, based on numerous studies, I propose that visual motion signals are swiftly transmitted via multiple non-hierarchical routes to primary motion-dedicated processing regions (MT/V5 and MST) that are not part of the dorsal pathway, and then propagated to a multiplicity of brain areas according to task demands, reaching these regions earlier than the dorsal/ventral hierarchical flow. This not only places MT/V5 at the same or even earlier visual processing stage as that of V1, but can also elucidate many findings with implications to visual awareness. While the integrity of the non-hierarchical motion pathway is necessary for all visual motion perception, it is insufficient on its own, and the transfer of visual motion signals to additional brain areas is crucial to allow the different motion perception tasks (e.g. optic flow, visuo-vestibular balance, movement observation, dynamic form detection and perception, and even reading). I argue that this lateral visual motion pathway can be distinguished from the dorsal pathway not only based on faster response latencies and distinct anatomical connections, but also based on its full field representation. I also distinguish between this primary lateral visual motion pathway sensitive to all motion in the visual field, and a much less investigated optic flow sensitive medial processing pathway (from V1 to V6 and V6A) that appears to be part of the dorsal pathway. Multiple additional predictions are provided that allow testing this proposal and distinguishing between the visual pathways.

The role of flicker and abrupt displacement in attention capture by motion onsets

Sunny and von Mühlenen (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1050-1056, 2011) showed that an onset of motion captured attention only when the motion was jerky (refreshed at 8 or 17 Hz), but not when it was smooth (33 or 100 Hz). However, it remained unclear why the onset of jerky motion captures attention. In the present study, we systematically tested the role of different aspects of jerky motion in capturing attention. Simple flicker without motion did not capture attention in the same way as jerky motion (Exp. 1). An abrupt displacement between 0.26° and 1.05° captured attention, irrespective of whether the stimulus subsequently continued to move smoothly (Exp. 2) or whether it remained stationary (Exps. 3 and 4). A displaced stimulus that was preceded briefly at the new location by a figure-8 placeholder did not capture attention (Exp. 5). These results are explained within a masking account, according to which abrupt onsets and abrupt displacements receive a processing advantage because they escape forward masking by the preceding figure-8 placeholders.

Octopaminergic modulation of contrast sensitivity

Sensory systems adapt to prolonged stimulation by decreasing their response to continuous stimuli. Whereas visual motion adaptation has traditionally been studied in immobilized animals, recent work indicates that the animal's behavioral state influences the response properties of higher-order motion vision-sensitive neurons. During insect flight octopamine is released, and pharmacological octopaminergic activation can induce a fictive locomotor state. In the insect optic ganglia, lobula plate tangential cells (LPTCs) spatially pool input from local elementary motion detectors (EMDs) that correlate luminosity changes from two spatially discrete inputs after delaying the signal from one. The LPTC velocity optimum thereby depends on the spatial separation of the inputs and on the EMD's delay properties. Recently it was shown that behavioral activity increases the LPTC velocity optimum, with modeling suggesting this to originate in the EMD's temporal delay filters. However, behavior induces an additional post-EMD effect: the LPTC membrane conductance increases in flying flies. To physiologically investigate the degree to which activity causes presynaptic and postsynaptic effects, we conducted intracellular recordings of Eristalis horizontal system (HS) neurons. We constructed contrast response functions before and after adaptation at different temporal frequencies, with and without the octopamine receptor agonist chlordimeform (CDM). We extracted three motion adaptation components, where two are likely to be generated presynaptically of the LPTCs, and one within them. We found that CDM affected the early, EMD-associated contrast gain reduction, temporal frequency dependently. However, a CDM-induced change of the HS membrane conductance disappeared during and after visual stimulation. This suggests that physical activity mainly affects motion adaptation presynaptically of LPTCs, whereas post-EMD effects have a minimal effect.

Direction-selective patterns of activity in human visual cortex suggest common neural substrates for different types of motion

A sense of motion can be elicited by the movement of both luminance- and texture-defined patterns, what is commonly referred to as first- and second-order, respectively. Although there are differences in the perception of these two classes of motion stimuli, including differences in temporal and spatial sensitivity, it is debated whether common or separate direction-selective mechanisms are responsible for processing these two types of motion. Here, we measured direction-selective responses to luminance- and texture-defined motion in the human visual cortex by using functional MRI (fMRI) in conjunction with multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA). We found evidence of direction selectivity for both types of motion in all early visual areas (V1, V2, V3, V3A, V4, and MT+), implying that none of these early visual areas is specialized for processing a specific type of motion. More importantly, linear classifiers trained with cortical activity patterns to one type of motion (e.g., first-order motion) could reliably classify the direction of motion defined by the other type (e.g., second-order motion). Our results suggest that the direction-selective mechanisms that respond to these two types of motion share similar spatial distributions in the early visual cortex, consistent with the possibility that common mechanisms are responsible for processing both types of motion.