Real-motion cells in area V3A of macaque visual cortex

• Published in: Experimental brain research 1990-01, Vol.82 (1), p.67-76
• Main Authors: GALLETTI, C, BATTAGLINI, P. P, FATTORI, P
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anatomical correlates of behavior; Animals; Behavioral psychophysiology; Biological and medical sciences; Eye Movements - physiology; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Macaca; Macaca fascicularis; Microelectrodes; Motion Perception - physiology; Neurons - physiology; Photic Stimulation; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Retina - physiology; Space life sciences; Visual Cortex - cytology; Visual Cortex - physiology
• ISSN: 0014-4819; 1432-1106
• DOI: 10.1007/BF00230838

The stability of visual perception despite eye movements suggests the existence, in the visual system, of neural elements able to recognize whether a movement of an image occurring in a particular part of the retina is the consequence of an actual movement that occurred in the visual field, or self-induced by an ocular movement while the object was still in the field of view. Recordings from single neurons in area V3A of awake macaque monkeys were made to check the existence of such a type of neurons (called 'real-motion' cells; see Galletti et al. 1984, 1988) in this prestriate area of the visual cortex. A total of 119 neurons were recorded from area V3A. They were highly sensitive to the orientation of the visual stimuli, being on average more sensitive than V1 and V2 neurons. Almost all of them were sensitive to a large range of velocities of stimulus movement and about one half to the direction of it. In order to assess whether they gave different responses to the movement of a stimulus and to that of its retinal image alone (self-induced by an eye movement while the stimulus was still), a comparison was made between neuronal responses obtained when a moving stimulus swept a stationary receptive field (during steady fixation) and when a moving receptive field swept a stationary stimulus (during tracking eye movement). The receptive field stimulation at retinal level was physically the same in both cases, but only in the first was there actual movement of the visual stimulus. Control trials, where the monkeys performed tracking eye movements without any intentional receptive field stimulation, were also carried out. For a number of neurons, the test was repeated in darkness and against a textured visual background. Eighty-seven neurons were fully studied to assess whether they were real-motion cells. About 48% of them (42/87) showed significant differences between responses to stimulus versus eye movement. The great majority of these cells (36/42) were real-motion cells, in that they showed a weaker response to visual stimulation during tracking than to the actual stimulus movement during steady fixation. On average, the reduction in visual response during eye movement was 64.0 +/- 15.7% (SD).