JN AJP: Heart and Circulatory Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol 90: 2757-2762, 2003. First published June 11, 2003; doi:10.1152/jn.00422.2003
0022-3077/03 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
90/4/2757    most recent
00422.2003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pasternak, T.
Right arrow Articles by Zaksas, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pasternak, T.
Right arrow Articles by Zaksas, D.

Report

Stimulus Specificity and Temporal Dynamics of Working Memory for Visual Motion

Tatiana Pasternak and Daniel Zaksas

Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14642

Submitted 1 May 2003; accepted in final form 9 June 2003

When asked to compare two moving stimuli separated by a delay, observers must not only identify stimulus direction but also store it in memory. We examined the properties of this storage mechanism in two macaque monkeys by sequentially presenting two random-dot stimuli, sample and test, in opposite hemifields and introducing a random-motion mask during the delay. The mask interfered with performance only at the precise location of the test, 100–200 ms after the start of the delay, and when its size and speed matched those of the remembered sample. This selective interference suggests that the representation of the motion stimulus in memory preserves its direction, speed, and size and is most fragile shortly after the completion of the encoding phase of the task. This precise preservation of sensory attributes of the motion stimulus suggests that the neural mechanisms involved in the processing of visual motion may also be involved in its storage.


Address for reprints and other correspondence: T. Pasternak, Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Box 603, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642 (E-mail: tania{at}cvs.rochester.edu).




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
NeuroscientistHome page
E. P. Merriam and C. L. Colby
Active Vision in Parietal and Extrastriate Cortex
Neuroscientist, October 1, 2005; 11(5): 484 - 493.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J. Neurophysiol.Home page
S. J. Bennett and G. R. Barnes
Predictive Smooth Ocular Pursuit During the Transient Disappearance of a Visual Target
J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2004; 92(1): 578 - 590.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2003 by the The American Physiological Society.