Briefly, electrophysiological studies of neural responses have shown feature-independent shape responses in single neurons in inferotemporal (IT) cortex of the nonhuman primate (Sáry et al., 1993), and lesions of IT cortex impair form-from-motion PI3K Inhibitor Library mouse discrimination performance (Britten et al., 1992). Similarly feature-tolerant single cell responses are present in V4 (Logothetis and Charles, 1990 and Mysore et al., 2006). The parallels between feature-tolerant responses in nonhuman primate IT cortex and human VOT cortex support the hypothesis that VWFA representations are derived from the same visual circuitry that creates all feature-tolerant shape responses. The necessity of hMT+
for seeing motion-dot words (Figure 5) Obeticholic Acid datasheet might have been surmised based on many human lesion studies (Blanke et al., 2007, Marcar et al., 1997, Regan et al., 1992 and Vaina et al., 1990). Damage in the anatomical region around hMT+ can reduce shape-from-motion
perception performance (Blanke et al., 2007, Marcar et al., 1997, Regan et al., 1992 and Vaina et al., 1990), although not in all cases (Vaina, 1989 and Vaina et al., 1990). Experiments in nonhuman primates have also shown that MT lesions produce shape discrimination deficits when forms are defined by motion but not luminance (Marcar and Cowey, 1992 and Schiller, 1993). More surprising is that TMS of hMT+ does not affect reading words defined by luminance-dots or line-contours (Figure 5). This lack of a disruptive effect by TMS suggests that hMT+ responses are not necessary for seeing standard words. These results are surprising because a large body of literature has shown correlations between reading skill and hMT+ BOLD responses to motion stimuli (Ben-Shachar et al., 2007a, Demb et al., 1997 and Demb et al., 1998) with decreased hMT+ responses in dyslexics (Eden et al.,
1996). There are at least three possible explanations for why hMT+ responses are correlated with reading ability without assigning hMT+ a causal role in reading. First, the development of rapid-processing pathways, including the magnocellular pathway, may be a prerequisite for the healthy development Tolmetin of other essential reading pathways (Witton et al., 1998). Between-subject differences in the development of the magnocellular pathway would be reflected in measurements of hMT+ responses, which primarily receive magnocellular input (Maunsell et al., 1990). These pathways may carry signals that coordinate development, but the signals may not be important for reading line-contour stimuli in the adult. Second, hMT+ processing may be necessary for certain reading tasks, but not others. For example, hMT+ may be important for directing fixation and for passage reading, but not for single-word lexical decisions (Stein, 2003).