Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
2
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1997-5-22
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
In the preceding paper we described the responses of cells in the cat's lateral suprasylvian visual area (LS) to large-field optic flow and texture movies. To assess response properties such as direction selectivity, cells were also tested with moving bar stimuli. We expected that there would be good agreement between response properties elicited with optic flow movies and those revealed with bar stimuli. We first asked how well bar response properties predicted responsiveness to optic flow movies. There was no correlation between responsiveness to movies and the degree of end-stopping, length summation, or preference for bars that accelerated and expanded. We then considered only the 322 cells that responded to both bars and optic flow or texture movies and asked how well the strength of their response to movies could be predicted from the direction-tuning curves generated with bar stimuli. One-third of these cells responded much more strongly to movies than could be predicted from their direction-tuning curves. Generally, such cells were rather well tuned for the direction of bar motion and preferred a direction substantially different from what they saw in optic flow movies. Optic flow movies shown in the forward direction were the most effective variety of movie for two-thirds of these cells. To see whether this outcome stemmed from differential direction tuning for bars and large multielement displays, in a second series of experiments we compared direction tuning for bars and large-field texture movies. Many cells showed substantially different direction tuning for the two kinds of stimulus: almost 1/3 of 409 cells had tuning curves that overlapped each other by < 50%. But only a small number of cells (< 10%) responded much better to texture movies than to bars in the predominant direction of image motion in optic flow movies. This result, like that reported in the preceding paper, suggests that cells in LS respond differently to optic flow than to texture displays lacking optic flow motion cues.
|
| pubmed:grant | |
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Feb
|
| pubmed:issn |
0022-3077
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
77
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
562-70
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2007-11-14
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1997
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Simulated optic flow and extrastriate cortex. II. Responses to bar versus large-field stimuli.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Biological Structure, University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7420, USA.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.,
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
|