Dataset Information

Areal differences in depth cue integration between monkey and human.

ABSTRACT: Electrophysiological evidence suggested primarily the involvement of the middle temporal (MT) area in depth cue integration in macaques, as opposed to human imaging data pinpointing area V3B/kinetic occipital area (V3B/KO). To clarify this conundrum, we decoded monkey functional MRI (fMRI) responses evoked by stimuli signaling near or far depths defined by binocular disparity, relative motion, and their combination, and we compared results with those from an identical experiment previously performed in humans. Responses in macaque area MT are more discriminable when two cues concurrently signal depth, and information provided by one cue is diagnostic of depth indicated by the other. This suggests that monkey area MT computes fusion of disparity and motion depth signals, exactly as shown for human area V3B/KO. Hence, these data reconcile previously reported discrepancies between depth processing in human and monkey by showing the involvement of the dorsal stream in depth cue integration using the same technique, despite the engagement of different regions.

SUBMITTER: Armendariz M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6457573 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Areal differences in depth cue integration between monkey and human.

Armendariz Marcelo M Ban Hiroshi H Welchman Andrew E AE Vanduffel Wim W

PLoS biology 20190329 3

Electrophysiological evidence suggested primarily the involvement of the middle temporal (MT) area in depth cue integration in macaques, as opposed to human imaging data pinpointing area V3B/kinetic occipital area (V3B/KO). To clarify this conundrum, we decoded monkey functional MRI (fMRI) responses evoked by stimuli signaling near or far depths defined by binocular disparity, relative motion, and their combination, and we compared results with those from an identical experiment previously perfo ...[more]

PMID: 30925163

Similar Datasets

Project description:Two behavioral experiments assessed the plasticity and short-term improvement of task switching in 215 children and adults. Specifically, we studied manipulations of cued attention to different features of a target stimulus as a way to assess the development of cognitive flexibility. Each experiment had multiple levels of difficulty via manipulation of number of cued features (2-4) and number of response options (2 or 4). Working memory demand was manipulated across the two experiments. Impact of memory demand and task level manipulations on task accuracy and response times were measured. There were three overall goals: First, these task manipulations (number of cued features, response choices, and working memory load) were tested to assess the stability of group differences in performance between children ages 6-16 years and adults 18-27 years, with the goal of reducing age group differences. Second, age-related transitions to adult-level performance were examined within subgroups of the child sample. Third, short-term improvement from the beginning to the end of the study session was measured to probe whether children can improve with task experience. Attempts to use task manipulations to reduce age differences in cued task switching performance were unsuccessful: children performed consistently worse and were more susceptible to task manipulations than adults. However, across both studies, adult-like performance was observed around mid-adolescence, by ages 13-16 years. Certain task manipulations, especially increasing number of response options when working memory demand was low, produced differences from adults even in the oldest children. Interestingly, there was similar performance improvement with practice for both child and adult groups. The higher memory demand version of the task (Experiment 2) prompted greater short-term improvement in accuracy and response times than the lower memory demand version (Experiment 1). These results reveal stable differences in cued switching performance over development, but also relative flexibility within a given individual over time.

Dataset Information

Areal differences in depth cue integration between monkey and human.

Publications

Areal differences in depth cue integration between monkey and human.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets