HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental Figures All Versions of this Article: 102/5/3016    most recent 90812.2008v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Castelo-Branco, M. Articles by Goebel, R. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Castelo-Branco, M. Articles by Goebel, R.

RESEARCH-ARTICLE

Type of Featural Attention Differentially Modulates hMT⁺ Responses to Illusory Motion Aftereffects

¹Visual Neuroscience Laboratory, IBILI, Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; ²Institute for Psychology, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary; ³MR Research Center, Szentagothai Knowledge Center, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary; ⁴Faculty of Psychology, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; and ⁵Department of Neuroradiology, Hospital Geral de Santo Antonio, Porto, Portugal

Submitted 26 July 2009; accepted in final form 21 August 2009

ABSTRACT

Activity in the human motion complex (hMT⁺/V5) is related to the perception of motion, be it either real surface motion or an illusion of motion such as apparent motion (AM) or motion aftereffect (MAE). It is a long-lasting debate whether illusory motion-related activations in hMT⁺ represent the motion itself or attention to it. We have asked whether hMT⁺ responses to MAEs are present when shifts in arousal are suppressed and attention is focused on concurrent motion versus nonmotion features. Significant enhancement of hMT⁺ activity was observed during MAEs when attention was focused either on concurrent spatial angle or color features. This observation was confirmed by direct comparison of adapting (MAE inducing) versus nonadapting conditions. In contrast, this effect was diminished when subjects had to report on concomitant speed changes of superimposed AM. The same finding was observed for concomitant orthogonal real motion (RM), suggesting that selective attention to concurrent illusory or real motion was interfering with the saliency of MAE signals in hMT⁺. We conclude that MAE-related changes in the global activity of hMT⁺ are present provided selective attention is not focused on an interfering feature such as concurrent motion. Accordingly, there is a genuine MAE-related motion signal in hMT⁺ that is neither explained by shifts in arousal nor by selective attention.