Preference for locomotion-compatible curved paths and forward direction of self-motion in somatomotor and visual areas

Marco, Sara Di; Fattori, Patrizia; Galati, Gaspare; Galletti, Claudio; Lappe, Markus; Maltempo, Teresa; Serra, Chiara; Sulpizio, Valentina; Pitzalis, Sabrina

doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2020.12.021

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 126 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The response in CSv was abolished when motion was scrambled, in line with earlier studies (Antal et al 2008;Pitzalis et al 2013b). Confirming this preference for changing heading, a recent study (Di Marco et al 2021) found that CSv responds more strongly to motion on a curved trajectory than to forward motion with constant heading. Furlan et al (2014) conducted an additional experiment employing motion that simulated turning either to the left or to the right while moving forward and found that the direction of heading change could easily be decoded in CSv with multivariate pattern analysis (MVPA).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Cortical visual area CSv as a cingulate motor area: a sensorimotor interface for the control of locomotion

Smith

2021

Brain Struct Funct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The response properties, connectivity and function of the cingulate sulcus visual area (CSv) are reviewed. Cortical area CSv has been identified in both human and macaque brains. It has similar response properties and connectivity in the two species. It is situated bilaterally in the cingulate sulcus close to an established group of medial motor/premotor areas. It has strong connectivity with these areas, particularly the cingulate motor areas and the supplementary motor area, suggesting that it is involved in motor control. CSv is active during visual stimulation but only if that stimulation is indicative of self-motion. It is also active during vestibular stimulation and connectivity data suggest that it receives proprioceptive input. Connectivity with topographically organized somatosensory and motor regions strongly emphasizes the legs over the arms. Together these properties suggest that CSv provides a key interface between the sensory and motor systems in the control of locomotion. It is likely that its role involves online control and adjustment of ongoing locomotory movements, including obstacle avoidance and maintaining the intended trajectory. It is proposed that CSv is best seen as part of the cingulate motor complex. In the human case, a modification of the influential scheme of Picard and Strick (Picard and Strick, Cereb Cortex 6:342–353, 1996) is proposed to reflect this.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Cortical visual area CSv as a cingulate motor area: a sensorimotor interface for the control of locomotion

Smith

2021

Brain Struct Funct

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It indeed responds to flow field visual stimulation (Pitzalis et al 2019) and, in a recent fMRI human study testing self-and object-motion in a naturalistic vision (Pitzalis et al 2020), we have found that hPEc has a reliable preference for pure self-motion simulating continuous changes in heading direction. In other recent studies, we found that hPEc shows a visual preference for a curved path compared to a linear path (Di Marco et al 2021). Notably, hPEc is able to integrate visual and somatomotor cues, with a preference for incongruent combination likely to signal a mismatch between these multisensory signals with the aim of promoting adjustments in lower limb movements during locomotion (Bellagamba et al 2019).…”

Section: Lower Vf Preference For Foot and Hand Pointing In Area Hpecmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Beyond hPEc, we also investigated the two neighboring legrelated areas, hPE and S-I, which we have already described as potentially implicated, although at a lower extent with respect to hPEc, in the visual control of locomotion, being activated by both leg movements and self-motion compatible optic flow (Di Marco et al 2021).…”

Section: Lower Vf Preference For Foot Pointing In Hpe and S-imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also examined the role of two neighboring anterior regions, defined in Pitzalis et al ( 2019 ) as hPE (human PE, in the postcentral sulcus) and the dorsomedial portion of S-I (Somatosensory-I). These two somatic regions respond to long-range leg movements (Pitzalis et al 2019 ), with hPE being also sensitive to egomotion-compatible optic flow, although at lower extent than hPEc (Pitzalis et al 2019 ; Di Marco et al 2021 ). We recently found further positive evidence of the presence of visual responses in these somatic regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We recently found further positive evidence of the presence of visual responses in these somatic regions. Specifically, we described hPE and S-I, as involved, together with area hPEc, in controlling changing direction of self-motion during locomotion, being activated by active leg movements and by locomotion-compatible path curvature from optic flow (Di Marco et al 2021 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lower visual field preference for the visuomotor control of limb movements in the human dorsomedial parietal cortex

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual cues coming from the lower visual field (VF) play an important role in the visual guidance of upper and lower limb movements. A recently described region situated in the dorsomedial parietal cortex, area hPEc (Pitzalis et al. in NeuroImage 202:116092, 2019), might have a role in integrating visually derived information with somatomotor signals to guide limb interaction with the environment. In macaque, it has been demonstrated that PEc receives visual information mostly from the lower visual field but, to date, there has been no systematic investigation of VF preference in the newly defined human homologue of macaque area PEc (hPEc). Here we examined the VF preferences of hPEc while participants performed a visuomotor task implying spatially directed delayed eye-, hand- and foot-movements towards different spatial locations within the VF. By analyzing data as a function of the different target locations towards which upcoming movements were planned (and then executed), we observed the presence of asymmetry in the vertical dimension of VF in area hPEc, being this area more strongly activated by limb movements directed towards visual targets located in the lower compared to the upper VF. This result confirms the view, first advanced in macaque monkey, that PEc is involved in processing visual information to guide body interaction with the external environment, including locomotion. We also observed a contralateral dominance for the lower VF preference in the foot selective somatomotor cortex anterior to hPEc. This result might reflect the role of this cortex (which includes areas PE and S-I) in providing highly topographically organized signals, likely useful to achieve an appropriate foot posture during locomotion.

show abstract

Neural sensitivity to translational self‐ and object‐motion velocities

Sulpizio,

von Gal,

Galati

et al. 2024

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to detect and assess world‐relative object‐motion is a critical computation performed by the visual system. This computation, however, is greatly complicated by the observer's movements, which generate a global pattern of motion on the observer's retina. How the visual system implements this computation is poorly understood. Since we are potentially able to detect a moving object if its motion differs in velocity (or direction) from the expected optic flow generated by our own motion, here we manipulated the relative motion velocity between the observer and the object within a stationary scene as a strategy to test how the brain accomplishes object‐motion detection. Specifically, we tested the neural sensitivity of brain regions that are known to respond to egomotion‐compatible visual motion (i.e., egomotion areas: cingulate sulcus visual area, posterior cingulate sulcus area, posterior insular cortex [PIC], V6+, V3A, IPSmot/VIP, and MT+) to a combination of different velocities of visually induced translational self‐ and object‐motion within a virtual scene while participants were instructed to detect object‐motion. To this aim, we combined individual surface‐based brain mapping, task‐evoked activity by functional magnetic resonance imaging, and parametric and representational similarity analyses. We found that all the egomotion regions (except area PIC) responded to all the possible combinations of self‐ and object‐motion and were modulated by the self‐motion velocity. Interestingly, we found that, among all the egomotion areas, only MT+, V6+, and V3A were further modulated by object‐motion velocities, hence reflecting their possible role in discriminating between distinct velocities of self‐ and object‐motion. We suggest that these egomotion regions may be involved in the complex computation required for detecting scene‐relative object‐motion during self‐motion.

show abstract

Preference for locomotion-compatible curved paths and forward direction of self-motion in somatomotor and visual areas

Cited by 18 publications

References 126 publications

Cortical visual area CSv as a cingulate motor area: a sensorimotor interface for the control of locomotion

Cortical visual area CSv as a cingulate motor area: a sensorimotor interface for the control of locomotion

Lower visual field preference for the visuomotor control of limb movements in the human dorsomedial parietal cortex

Neural sensitivity to translational self‐ and object‐motion velocities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About