Search

The use of allocentric cues for movement guidance is complex because it involves the integration of visual targets and independent landmarks and the conversion of this information into egocentric commands for action. Here, we focus on the mechanisms for encoding reach targets relative to visual landmarks in humans. First, we consider the behavioral results suggesting that both of these cues influence target memory, but are then transformed—at the first opportunity—into egocentric commands for action. We then consider the cortical mechanisms for these behaviors. We discuss different allocentric versus egocentric mechanisms for coding of target directional selectivity in memory (inferior temporal gyrus versus superior occipital gyrus) and distinguish these mechanisms from parieto‐frontal activation for planning egocentric direction of actual reach movements. Then, we consider where and how the former allocentric representations of remembered reach targets are converted into the latter egocentric plans. In particular, our recent neuroimaging study suggests that four areas in the parietal and frontal cortex (right precuneus, bilateral dorsal premotor cortex, and right presupplementary area) participate in this allo‐to‐ego conversion. Finally, we provide a functional overview describing how and why egocentric and landmark‐centered representations are segregated early in the visual system, but then reintegrated in the parieto‐frontal cortex for action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A remembered saccade target could be encoded in egocentric coordinates such as gaze-centered, or relative to some external allocentric landmark that is independent of the target or gaze (landmark-centered). In comparison to egocentric mechanisms, very little is known about such a landmark-centered representation. Here, we used an event-related fMRI design to identify brain areas supporting these two types of spatial coding (i.e., landmark-centered vs. gaze-centered) for target memory during the Delay phase where only target location, not saccade direction, was specified. The paradigm included three tasks with identical display of visual stimuli but different auditory instructions: Landmark Saccade (remember target location relative to a visual landmark, independent of gaze), Control Saccade (remember original target location relative to gaze fixation, independent of the landmark), and a non-spatial control, Color Report (report target color). During the Delay phase, the Control and Landmark Saccade tasks activated overlapping areas in posterior parietal cortex (PPC) and frontal cortex as compared to the color control, but with higher activation in PPC for target coding in the Control Saccade task and higher activation in temporal and occipital cortex for target coding in Landmark Saccade task. Gaze-centered directional selectivity was observed in superior occipital gyrus and inferior occipital gyrus, whereas landmark-centered directional selectivity was observed in precuneus and midposterior intraparietal sulcus. During the Response phase after saccade direction was specified, the parietofrontal network in the left hemisphere showed higher activation for rightward than leftward saccades. Our results suggest that cortical activation for coding saccade target direction relative to a visual landmark differs from gaze-centered directional selectivity for target memory, from the mechanisms for other types of allocentric tasks, and from the directionally selective mechanisms for saccade planning and execution.

Ipsilateral motor areas of cerebral cortex are active during arm movements and even reliably predict movement direction. Is coding similar during ipsilateral and contralateral movements? If so, is it in extrinsic (world-centered) or intrinsic (joint-configuration) coordinates? We addressed these questions by examining the similarity of multivoxel fMRI patterns in visuomotor cortical regions during unilateral reaching movements with both arms. The results of three complementary analyses revealed that fMRI response patterns were similar across right and left arm movements to identical targets (extrinsic coordinates) in visual cortices, and across movements with equivalent joint-angles (intrinsic coordinates) in motor cortices. We interpret this as evidence for the existence of distributed neural populations in multiple motor system areas that encode ipsilateral and contralateral movements in a similar manner: according to their intrinsic/joint coordinates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Directional selectivity during visually guided hand movements is a fundamental characteristic of neural populations in multiple motor areas of the primate brain. In the current study, we assessed how directional selectivity changes when reaching movements are dissociated from their visual feedback by rotating the visual field. We recorded simultaneous movement kinematics and fMRI activity while human subjects performed out-and-back movements to four peripheral targets before and after adaptation to a 45° visuomotor rotation. A classification algorithm was trained to identify movement direction according to voxel-by-voxel fMRI patterns in each of several brain areas. The direction of movements was successfully decoded with above-chance accuracy in multiple motor and visual areas when training and testing the classifier on trials within each condition, thereby demonstrating the existence of directionally selective fMRI patterns within each stage of the experiment. Most importantly, when training the classifier on baseline trials and decoding rotated trials, motor brain areas exhibited above-chance decoding according to the original movement direction and visual brain areas exhibited above-chance decoding according to the rotated visual target location, while posterior parietal cortex (PPC) exhibited chance-level decoding according to both. These results reveal that directionally selective fMRI patterns in motor system areas faithfully represent movement direction regardless of visual feedback, while fMRI patterns in visual system areas faithfully represent target location regardless of movement direction. Directionally selective fMRI patterns in PPC, however, were altered following adaptation learning, thereby suggesting that the novel visuomotor mapping, which was learned during visuomotor adaptation, is stored in PPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The location of a remembered reach target can be encoded in egocentric and/or allocentric reference frames. Cortical mechanisms for egocentric reach are relatively well described, but the corresponding allocentric representations are essentially unknown. Here, we used an event-related fMRI design to distinguish human brain areas involved in these two types of representation. Our paradigm consisted of three tasks with identical stimulus display but different instructions: egocentric reach (remember absolute target location), allocentric reach (remember target location relative to a visual landmark), and a nonspatial control, color report (report color of target). During the delay phase (when only target location was specified), the egocentric and allocentric tasks elicited widely overlapping regions of cortical activity (relative to the control), but with higher activation in parietofrontal cortex for egocentric task and higher activation in early visual cortex for allocentric tasks. In addition, egocentric directional selectivity (target relative to gaze) was observed in the superior occipital gyrus and the inferior occipital gyrus, whereas allocentric directional selectivity (target relative to a visual landmark) was observed in the inferior temporal gyrus and inferior occipital gyrus. During the response phase (after movement direction had been specified either by reappearance of the visual landmark or a pro-/anti-reach instruction), the parietofrontal network resumed egocentric directional selectivity, showing higher activation for contralateral than ipsilateral reaches. These results show that allocentric and egocentric reach mechanisms use partially overlapping but different cortical substrates and that directional specification is different for target memory versus reach response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]