Physiological experiments have produced evidence that the middle temporal visual area (MT) of the monkey is selectively involved in the analysis of visual motion. We tested this hypothesis by studying the effects of small chemical lesions of MT on eye movements made in response to moving as opposed to stationary visual targets. We observed two deficits for eye movements made to moving targets: a monkey's ability to match the speed of his smooth pursuit eye movements to the speed of the moving target was impaired, and a monkey's ability to adjust the amplitude of a saccadic eye movement to compensate for target motion was impaired. In contrast, saccades to stationary targets were unaffected by the MT lesions, suggesting that monkeys with MT lesions had more difficulty responding to moving than to stationary stimuli. These results provide the first behavioral evidence that neural processing in MT contributes to the cortical analysis of visual motion.Primate extrastriate visual cortex is composed of a remarkable array of distinct visual areas. In the macaque monkey no fewer than nine extrastriate areas have been identified on the basis of anatomical connections, visual topography, cortical architectonics, and single neuron response properties (for reviews, see Zeki, 1978;Van Essen, 1979; Woolsey, 1981). How these areas individually and collectively contribute to vision is a central issue for a neurobiological understanding of visual processing.Perhaps the most intensively studied of these areas is the middle temporal visual area (MT), an area in the posterior bank of the superior temporal sulcus (STS) which receives a direct projection

To study the visual processing of periodic and aperiodic patterns, we have analyzed neuronal responses in areas V1 and V2 of the visual cortex of alert monkeys during behaviorally induced fixation of gaze. Receptive field eccentricities ranged between 0.5 degrees and 4 degrees. We found cells that responded vigorously to gratings, but weakly or not all to bars and edges. In some cells the aperiodic stimuli even reduced the activity below the spontaneous level. The distribution of a bar-grating response index indicated a discrete population of “grating cells” characterized by more than 10-fold superiority of gratings. We estimated that these cells have a frequency of 4% in V1 and 1.6% in V2, and that about 4 million grafting cells of V1 subserve the central 4 degrees of vision. The converse, cells that responded to isolated bars but not to gratings of any periodicity, was also observed. The grating cells of V1 were mostly (23 of 26) found in layers 2, 3, and 4B. They preferred spatial frequencies between 2.6 and 19 cycles/degree (median, 9.3), with tuning widths at half-amplitude between 0.4 and 1.4 octaves (median, 1.0). Their tunings were narrower, and their preferred frequencies higher, than those of other cells on average. Grating cells were also narrowly tuned for orientation. Those of V2 were similarly selective. The responses of grating cells depended critically on the number of cycles of the gratings. With square waves of optimum periodicity responses required a minimum of 2–6 grating cycles and leveled off at 4–14 (median, 7.5). The corresponding receptive field widths were 0.34–2.4 degrees (median, 0.78 degrees) for V1 and 0.72–2.4 degrees (median, 1.4 degrees) for V2. Grating cells typically gave unmodulated responses to drifting gratings, were unselective for direction of motion, and were strongly activated also by stationary gratings. Half of those of V1 were monocular, the others binocular, some showing strong binocular facilitation and disparity sensitivity. Length summation was usually monotonic, but strong end- inhibition was also observed. In contrast to other cells, grating cells were not activated by harmonic components. Spatial-frequency response curves for sine-wave, square-wave, and line gratings were similar. Square-wave gratings of one-third the preferred frequency failed to excite the cells, while the isolated 3f component (f = the fundamental of the square wave) of these gratings evoked strong responses. In spite of the nonlinear features, grating cells had low contrast thresholds.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

No abstract