Skip to main content
. 2016 Nov 23;36(47):11918–11928. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1888-16.2016

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Design of attentive motion-detection task and comparison of activation patterns during attentive discrimination and detection tasks. A, Event sequence of one of the RDSs. The sequence of events was identical to that in the motion-discrimination task (Fig. 1B), but motion during the brief 60 ms periods was incoherent, while motion during the task-relevant prolonged motion event was 10% coherent (CME). The duration of the CME was ≤500 ms for monkey Q and ≤800 ms for monkey M. Monkeys were required to respond to the target surface CME by a saccade onto the target surface, regardless of motion direction. B, Temporal sequence of behavioral conditions (attentive motion discrimination, passive fixation, and attentive motion detection) during scanning. The attentive motion-detection task (E) employed a spatial cue, rapid serial visual stimulus presentation, and alternated with the attentive motion-discrimination task (I) and passive fixation periods (F) in a sequence IFEFIFE. During attentive discrimination and attentive detection, monkeys had to complete seven trials successfully (hits). Thus, duration of these blocks was variable, on average ∼30 s. Passive fixation blocks separated the two attention paradigms and lasted 5 s. C, β Values for four attention conditions are shown as bar graphs. Significant activation differences between the two conditions attend contralateral (attend contra) and attend ipsilateral (attend ipsi) are indicated, when they occurred in both subjects, as follows: *p < 0.01 (ANOVA, multiple-comparison corrected); ***, most significant differences; **, differences with at least half the F value of the most significant difference. Because the occipital lobe was not covered by slices in these scans, early cortical areas could not be included in the analysis. D, AIs for the four ROIs with significant activation and attention modulation across animals and conditions. Areas MT and PITd show the same degree of modulation in both attention tasks, while area LIP and the FEF show stronger attentional modulation during motion-detection tasks than during motion-discrimination tasks. AIs in area PITd are very similar to those in Figure 3.