spatiotemporal characteristics of cortical responses to ...and subcortical (motor thalamic)...
TRANSCRIPT
Anatomy
Behaviour
Sensors
Coregistration MEG Source Estimation
Global Local Natural Local Modified
100 ms
100 ms
1000 ms
500 ms
2000 ms
3000 ms
+ 1000-2000 ms isi
dSPM (source estimation)
SVM (MVPA; in sensor space)
SVM (MEG) vs SVM (fMRI)
1 Grossman ED, Blake R (2002) Brain areas active during visual perception of biological motion. Neuron 35: 1167-1175.2 Saygin AP, Wilson SM, Hagler DJ, Bates E, Sereno MI (2004) Point-light biological motion perception activates human premotor cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 24(27): 6181-6188.3 Jastoff J, Orban GA (2009) Human functional magnetic resonance imaging reveals separation and integration of shape and motion cues in biological motion processing. Journal of Neuroscience 29: 7315-7329.4 Chang, D. H. F., Ban, H., Ikegaya, Y., Fujita, I., & Troje, N. F. (2018). Cortical and subcortical responses to biological motion. NeuroImage, 174, 87-96.
Spatiotemporal characteristics of cortical responses to biological motion
Contact: [email protected]
Introduction
Biological motion perception engages widespread cortical and subcortical (motor thalamic) responses [e.g., 1-4].
What are the temporal dynamics of biological motion per-ception (MEG)?
Method
Design
Results
Discussion
References
Performance was better for the global than the local natural and mod-ified stimuli [F(2, 40) = 81.9, p < .001, η2
p = .804]. Performance was worse for inverted versus upright stimuli., but only for the local natural and mod-dified stimuli [[F(2,40) = 11.08, η2
p = .357].
A wide cortical network is involved in biological motion percep-tion, spanning early and extrastriate cortexUnivariate engagement of these regions proceeds with temporal sys-tematicity: lateraloccipital cortex -> parietal cortex -> temporal cortex
MEG data can be considered multivariately: resolving clear differ-ences in onset of condition discriminability (e.g., onset of orientation discriminability for global stimuli).
By exploiting the temporal resolution of MEG and spatial resolu-tion of fMRI, we revealed differences in the onset of representational correspondence between early and extrastriate responses (much ear-lier for retinotopic than for extrastriate cortex).
1Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong2State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
3Center for Vision Research, York University, Canada4Center for Information and Neural Networks, NICT, Japan
Stimuli & Participants
Can we relate them to cortical responses observed using fMRI?
N = 21
(trial configuration)
+
+
+
+
+
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Global Local Natural Local Modified
Prop
ortio
n C
orre
ct
FusiformInferiorparietal InferiortemporalMiddletemporal SuperiorparietalSuperiortemporal
-200 600 140000.51
1.52
2.5Lateraloccipital
Global Local Natural Local Modified
Lateralorbitofrontal
Time (ms)
dSPM
00.51
1.52
2.5
dSPM
Upright
InvertedFusiformInferiorparietal InferiortemporalMiddletemporal SuperiorparietalSuperiortemporalLateraloccipital
Lateralorbitofrontal
Lateraloccipital (300 ms) responses precede inferior/superior parietal re-sponses (350-375 ms), and are followed by responses in superior/middle tempo-ral & fusiform (450-475 ms) and orbitofrontal (575 ms) regions.
fMRI (V1)
-202
Global UprGlobal Inv
Nat UprNat Inv
Mod UprMod Inv
Global UprGlobal InvNat UprNat InvMod UprMod Inv
z (decoding accuracy)
vs MEG
t200 ms
...
t1200 ms
z (decoding accuracy)
Spea
rman
’s R
-1
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
1
200 600 800 1000 1200400Time (ms)
MT EBAFBA
IFGSTS
V1V2
V3
Early onset (240-260 ms; and 560-580 ms) of representational correspondence in V1-V3
Representational correspondence arrives much later (1140-1160 ms) in extrastriate (EBA)
Lateraloccipital Middletemporal Superiortemporal Inferiorparietal
Superiorparietal Inferiortemporal Fusiform Lateralorbitofrontal
GlobalLocal
Natural Local
Modified
00.51
1.52
2.5
00.51
1.5
22.5
00.51
1.5
22.5
00.51
1.5
22.5
00.51
1.52
2.5
00.51
1.5
22.5
00.51
1.5
22.5
00.51
1.5
22.5
dSPM
dSPM
UprightInverted
-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)
-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)-200 600 1400
Time (ms)
GlobalLocal
Natural Local
Modified GlobalLocal
Natural Local
ModifiedGlobal
Local
Natural Local
Modified
GlobalLocal
Natural Local
Modified GlobalLocal
Natural Local
Modified GlobalLocal
Natural Local
ModifiedGlobal
Local
Natural Local
Modified
Peak responses
200 600 800 1000 1200400Time (ms)
Spea
rman
’s R
-1
-0.6
-0.2
0.2
0.6
1
Data analysis: MNE; Bandpass fil-tered (1-40 Hz)
Global UprGlobal Inv
Nat UprNat Inv
Mod UprMod Inv
Global UprGlobal InvNat UprNat In
vMod UprMod Inv
Global UprGlobal Inv
Nat UprNat Inv
Mod UprMod Inv
Global UprGlobal InvNat UprNat In
vMod UprMod Inv
(response)
Dorita H. F. Chang1,2, Nikolaus F. Troje3, Hiroshi Ban4
Global, Natural, Modified (Upright)
Time (ms)200 600 1000 1400-200
SVM
Acc
urac
y
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Time (ms)
SVM
Acc
urac
y
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8 Global vs. NatNat vs ModGlobal vs Mod
Global, Natural, Modified (Inverted)
200 600 1000 1400-200Time (ms)
SVM
Acc
urac
y
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8Upright vs Inverted
200 600 1000 1400-200
Global vs. NatNat vs ModGlobal vs Mod
GlobalNatMod