August 2010
Volume 10, Issue 7
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2010
Relative latency of visual evoked responses to reversals in contrast, orientation, and motion direction
Author Affiliations
  • Oliver Braddick
    Dept of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, UK
  • Jin Lee
    Dept of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, UK
  • Katie McKinnon
    St Anne's College, Oxford , UK
  • Isobel Neville
    St Catherine's College, Oxford, UK
  • John Wattam-Bell
    Visual Development Unit, Dept of Developmental Science, University College London, UK
  • Janette Atkinson
    Visual Development Unit, Dept of Developmental Science, University College London, UK
Journal of Vision August 2010, Vol.10, 925. doi:10.1167/10.7.925
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Oliver Braddick, Jin Lee, Katie McKinnon, Isobel Neville, John Wattam-Bell, Janette Atkinson; Relative latency of visual evoked responses to reversals in contrast, orientation, and motion direction. Journal of Vision 2010;10(7):925. doi: 10.1167/10.7.925.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Conventional VEP recording tests neural responses evoked by reversing pattern contrast. VEPs for orientation-reversal (OR) [Braddick et al (1986), Nature, 320: 617] and direction-reversal (DR) [Wattam-Bell (1991), Vision Res, 31: 287] use stimulus sequences designed to isolate cortical responses to these higher-order changes from responses to contrast change. Since these require more complex processing than contrast changes, we might expect some additional delay of the measured response, reflecting this additional processing.

We have tested this hypothesis by recording pattern-reversal (PR-), OR- and DR responses, at reversal rates up to 4 /sec, from occipital scalp electrodes on adult subjects, and assessing the mean latency of the first positive peak. OR- and DR- sequences isolate the effect of reversals from accompanying contrast changes, by embedding the reversal event within a sequence of equivalent contrast changes (‘jumps’). We use two methods to avoid our latency measures being contaminated by responses to jumps – filtering out harmonics in the signal related to the jump frequency, or subtracting a ‘jump-only’ section of the waveform from the response to reversal + jump.

We find very similar latencies for OR- and PR- responses, suggesting that responses to pattern reversal arise from a level of cortical processing which is already orientation-selective. The DR- response is more complex, but typically contains components with a latency 10-20 ms lower than either PR or OR - evidence against any time penalty associated with motion processing. We will discuss these results in relation to possible differences in the balance of magno- and parvocellular inputs to the three responses, and possible ‘fast’ routes for motion processing bypassing V1. Future work will test the overall temporal properties of the different responses, beyond the initial latency, and also the potential use of this comparison in analysing cortical processing in infancy.

Acknowledgments
Research Grant G0601007 from the Medical Research Council and a Thouron award from the University of Pennsylvania. 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×