ArticleHuman brain mapping2021
The dual nature of the BOLD signal: Responses in visual area hMT+ reflect both input properties and perceptual decision.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Distinct oscillatory patterns differentiate between segregation and integration processes in perceptual grouping.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Encoding of continuous perceptual choices in human early visual cortex.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Article
- The dual nature of the BOLD signal: Responses in visual area hMT+ reflect both input properties and perceptual decision.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuroimaging studies have suggested that hMT+ encodes global motion interpretation, but this contradicts the notion that BOLD activity mainly reflects neuronal input. While measuring fMRI responses at 7 Tesla, we used an ambiguous moving stimulus, yielding the perception of two incoherently moving surfaces-component motion-or only one coherently moving surface-pattern motion, to induce perceptual fluctuations and identify perceptual organization size-matched domains in hMT+. Then, moving gratings, exactly matching either the direction of component or pattern motion percepts of the ambiguous stimulus, were shown to the participants to investigate whether response properties reflect the input or decision. If hMT+ responses reflect the input, component motion domains (selective to incoherent percept) should show grating direction stimulus-dependent changes, unlike pattern motion domains (selective to the coherent percept). This hypothesis is based on the known direction-selective nature of inputs in component motion perceptual domains versus non-selectivity in pattern motion perceptual domains. The response amplitude of pattern motion domains did not change with grating direction (consistently with their non-selective input), in contrast to what happened for the component motion domains (consistently with their selective input). However, when we analyzed relative ratio measures they mirrored perceptual interpretation. These findings are consistent with the notion that patterns of BOLD responses reflect both sensory input and perceptual read-out.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.