Search

Observers spontaneously segment larger activities into smaller events. For example, "washing a car" might be segmented into "scrubbing," "rinsing," and "drying" the car. This process, called event segmentation, separates "what is happening now? from "what just happened." In this study, we show that event segmentation predicts activity in the hippocampus when people access recent information. Participants watched narrative film and occasionally attempted to retrieve from memory objects that recently appeared in the film. The delay between object presentation and test was always 5 sec. Critically, for some of the objects, the event changed during the delay whereas for others the event continued. Using fMRI, we examined whether retrieval-related brain activity differed when the event changed during the delay. Brain regions involved in remembering past experiences over long periods, including the hippocampus, were more active during retrieval when the event changed during the delay. Thus, the way an object encountered just 5 sec ago is retrieved from memory appears to depend in part on what happened in those 5 sec. These data strongly suggest that the segmentation of ongoing activity into events is a control process that regulates when memory for events is updated.

People perceive ongoing activity in terms of discrete temporal events. Distinctive changes in the movement of objects or actors may contribute to the perception that one event has ended and another has begun. However, little is known about the quantitative contribution of movement information to the processing of events. This study investigated how movement features are related to the neural processing of events by performing functional magnetic resonance imaging while participants viewed simple animations of moving objects. After the imaging session, participants watched the animations again and segmented them into meaningful events. Movement features were systematically related to viewers' perceptual segmentation and to cortical activity throughout visual processing areas. Activity in the MT complex, which is known to be specialized for processing motion, increased with increases in the objects' speed. The perception of an event boundary was associated with transient changes in the MT complex and in a nearby region in the superior temporal sulcus associated with processing biological motion. Other movement features were associated with changes in activity in occipital, parietal, and frontal cortex. These results indicate a role for movement features in the perceptual processing of meaningful events, and in the neural basis of that processing.

Observers are able to segment continuous everyday activity into meaningful parts. This ability may be related to processing low-level visual cues, such as changes in motion. To address this issue, the present study combined measurement of evoked responses to event boundaries with functional identification of the extrastriate motion complex (MT+) and the frontal eye field (FEF), two regions related to motion perception and eye movements. The results provided strong evidence that MT+ is activated by event boundaries: Individuals' MT+ regions showed strong responses to event boundaries, and MT+ was collocated with a lateral posterior region that responded at event boundaries. The evidence regarding the FEF was less conclusive: The FEF showed reliable but relatively reduced responses to event boundaries, but the FEF was medial and superior to a frontal area that responded at event boundaries. These results suggest that motion cues, and possibly eye movements, may play key roles in event structure perception.

Neuroimaging researchers increasingly take advantage of the known functional properties of brain regions to localize them and probe changes in their activity under different conditions. The utility of this approach depends in part on the reliability of the methods used to define these regions of interest. Two operations may affect the reliability of functionally identified regions: spatially normalizing data to a stereotactic atlas and statistically combining data across participants to form a composite region (as opposed to identifying individual regions for each participant). The effect of these two operations on reliability was evaluated for two functionally identifiable regions: the MT complex and the frontal eye fields. Spatial normalization had almost no effect on within-subject reliability, while grouping across participants negatively affected retest measures of the activation and location of regions defined on separate occasions. We conclude that, for typical sample sizes and numbers of observations per subject, functional localization is most reliable when performed for each individual using data in atlas space.