ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
Brain and Cognition
Volume 61, Issue 2, July 2006, Pages 172-180
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Article
Purchase PDF (282 K)

 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2005.12.004    How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)
Copyright © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Is coherent motion an appropriate test for magnocellular sensitivity?

Bernt C. Skottuna and John R. Skoylesb, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author

aSkottun Research, P.O. Box 592, Ramah, NM 87321, USA bCentre for Mathematics and Physics in the Life Sciences and Experimental Biology (CoMPLEX), University College London, NW1 2HE, UK

Accepted 19 December 2005. 
Available online 7 February 2006.

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

Abstract

The suggestion that coherent motion may serve as a test of magnocellular sensitivity is problematic. However, the nature of the problems depends on how the “magnocellular system” is defined. If this term is limited to subcortical entities, the problems are that subcortical neurons are not directionally selective, and that their receptive fields are too small to account for the spatial summation of coherent motion. If “magnocellular system” is defined to include cortical entities, such as area MT, one is faced with the fact that this definition itself is problematic as well as the problem that area MT is known to receive parvocellular and koniocellular inputs.

Keywords: Magnocellular; Random dots; Movement; Parvocellular; Koniocellular; Area MT; Motion perception; Vision; Dyslexia

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Direct relationship between the magnocellular system and coherent motion
2.1. Direction selectivity
2.2. Area of integration
2.3. Lesions studies
2.4. Effects of flicker and red backgrounds
3. Indirect relationship between coherent motion and the magnocellular system
3.1. Parvocellular and koniocellular input to area MT
3.2. Two (or more?) motion systems
3.3. Contrast sensitivity
4. Further observations
4.1. Coherence with drifting gratings
4.2. General and specific involvements
5. Discussion
Acknowledgements
References


Brain and Cognition
Volume 61, Issue 2, July 2006, Pages 172-180
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.