2004
DOI: 10.1016/s0079-6123(03)14414-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

First-order and second-order motion: neurological evidence for neuroanatomically distinct systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
27
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 61 publications
2
27
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On that basis, it has often been proposed that second-order motion processing relies on separate, and perhaps 'higher order' extrastriate brain areas (e.g. Baker, 1999;Vaina & Soloviev, 2004). In the context of amblyopia for example, Simmers, Ledgeway, Hess and McGraw (2003) have shown greater deficits for second-order (contrast-defined) global motion processing than for first-order (luminance-defined) global motion processing, relative to a 'normal' population.…”
Section: More Complex Types Of Global Motionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On that basis, it has often been proposed that second-order motion processing relies on separate, and perhaps 'higher order' extrastriate brain areas (e.g. Baker, 1999;Vaina & Soloviev, 2004). In the context of amblyopia for example, Simmers, Ledgeway, Hess and McGraw (2003) have shown greater deficits for second-order (contrast-defined) global motion processing than for first-order (luminance-defined) global motion processing, relative to a 'normal' population.…”
Section: More Complex Types Of Global Motionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some other features of the c-WWI are also in line with such a proposal: It is a bistable percept that occurs sporadically, and it requires a period of viewing time before it is experienced (Andrews & Purves, 2005;Holcombe et al, 2005;Kline et al, 2004Kline et al, , 2006VanRullen, 2007). However, other features are contradictory to this adaptation view but are compatible with the proposal that it is a consequence of aliasing in at least one motion perception system due to discrete sampling: It has an optimal stimulus temporal frequency (of about 10 Hz) (VanRullen et al, 2005); it does not depend on the stimulus' spatial frequency (Purves et al, 1996;Simpson et al, 2005;VanRullen et al, 2005); it occurs for motion of both firstorder stimuli (luminance-defined) and second-order stimuli (contrast-defined) (VanRullen et al, 2005), even though these two types of stimuli may be processed by different areas of the brain (Dumoulin, Baker, Hess, & Evans, 2003;Vaina & Soloviev, 2004; although see Nishida, Sasaki, Murakami, Watanabe, & Tootell, 2003;Seiffert, Somers, Dale, & Tootell, 2003); and its strength decreases with eccentricity, whereas both the static and flicker MAEs increase with eccentricity (VanRullen, 2007), indicating that it is not solely driven by adaptation. Furthermore, the bistability of the c-WWI can be reconciled with the notion of discrete attentional sampling by proposing that adaptation leads to a competition for dominance between the veridical percept generated by the lower-level motion perception system, which is unaffected by discrete sampling, and its alias from the attention-based system where the c-WWI originates.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we have shown how the OFR may be applied to investigate disturbance of motion vision in a disorder affecting the optic nerve. Our results are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution, but we suggest that the OFR could be usefully employed to study a range of disorders of the visual system and would supplement electrophysiological and psychophysical approaches [33].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%