Motion Processing: How the brain stays in sync with the real world
The brain can predict the location of a moving object to compensate for the delays caused by the processing of neural signals.
- Experimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, Netherlands
In professional baseball the batter has to hit a ball that can be travelling as fast as 170 kilometers per hour. Part of the challenge is that the batter only has access to outdated information: it takes the brain about 80–100 milliseconds to process visual information, during which time the baseball will have moved about 4.5 meters closer to the batter (Allison et al., 1994; Thorpe et al., 1996). This should make it virtually impossible to consistently hit the baseball, but the batters in Major League Baseball manage to do so about 90% of the time. How is this possible?
Fortunately, baseballs and other objects in our world are governed by the laws of physics, so it is usually possible to predict their trajectories. It has been proposed that the brain can work out where a moving object is in almost real time by exploiting this predictability to compensate for the delays caused by processing (Hogendoorn and Burkitt, 2019; Kiebel et al., 2008; Nijhawan, 1994). However, it has not been clear how the brain might be able to do this.
Since predictions must be made within a matter of milliseconds, highly time-sensitive methods are needed to study this process. Previous experiments were unsuccessful in determining the exact timing of brain activity (Wang et al., 2014). Now, in eLife, Philippa Anne Johnson and colleagues at the University of Melbourne and the University of Amsterdam report new insights into motion processing (Johnson et al., 2023).
Johnson et al. used a combination of electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings and pattern recognition algorithms to investigate how long it took participants to process the location of objects that either flashed in one place (static objects) or moved in a straight line (moving objects). Using machine learning techniques, Johnson et al. first identified how the brain represents a non-moving object (Grootswagers et al., 2017). They accurately mapped patterns of neural activity, which corresponded to the location of the static object during the experiment. Participants took about 80 milliseconds to process this information (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Motion processing in the human brain.
Johnson et al. compared how long it takes the brain to process visual information about static objects and moving objects. The static objects (top) did not move but were briefly shown in unpredictable locations on the screen: the delay between the appearance of the object and the representation of its location in the brain was about 80 milliseconds. However, when the object moved in a predictable manner (bottom), the delay was much smaller.
Strikingly, Johnson et al. discovered that the brain represented the moving object at location different to where one would expect it to be (i.e., not at the location from 80ms ago). Instead, the internal representation of the moving object was aligned to its actual current location so that the brain was able to track moving objects in real time. The visual system must therefore be able to correct the position by at least 80 milliseconds worth of movement, indicating that the brain can effectively compensate for temporal processing delays by predicting (or extrapolating) where a moving object will be located in the future.
To fully grasp how motion prediction processes compensate for the lag between the external world and the brain, it is important to know where in the visual system this compensatory mechanism occurs. Johnson et al. showed that the delay was already fully compensated for in the visual cortex, indicating that the compensation happens early during visual processing. There is evidence to suggest that some degree of motion prediction occurs in the retina, but Johnson et al. argue that this on its own is not enough to fully compensate for the delays caused by neural processing (Berry et al., 1999).
Another possibility is that a brain area involved in a later stage of motion perception, called the middle temporal area, may also play a role in predicting the location of an object (Maus et al., 2013). This region is thought to provide predictive feedback signals that help to compensate for the neural processing delay between the real world and the brain (Hogendoorn and Burkitt, 2019). More research is needed to test this theory, for example, by directly recording neurons in the middle temporal area in primates and rodents using intracranial electrodes. Gaining access to such accurate spatial and temporal neural information might be key to identifying where predictions are made and what they foresee exactly.
The work of Johnson et al. confirms that motion prediction of around 80–100 milliseconds can almost completely compensate for the lag between events in the real world and their internal representation in the brain. As such, humans are able to react to incredibly fast events – if they are predictable, like a baseball thrown at a batter. Neural delays need to be accounted for in all types of information processing within the brain, including the planning and execution of movements. A deeper understanding of such compensatory processes will ultimately help us to understand how the human brain can cope with a fast world, while the speed of its internal signaling is limited. The evidence here seems to suggest that we overcome these neural delays during motion perception by living in our brain’s prediction of the present.
References
-
Decoding dynamic brain patterns from evoked responses: a tutorial on multivariate pattern analysis applied to time series neuroimaging dataJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29:677–697.https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01068
-
A hierarchy of time-scales and the brainPLOS Computational Biology 4:e1000209.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000209
-
Motion direction biases and decoding in human visual cortexThe Journal of Neuroscience 34:12601–12615.https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1034-14.2014
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2023, Koevoet, Sahakian et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,865
- views
-
- 124
- downloads
-
- 0
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Motion Processing: How the brain stays in sync with the real world
eLife 12:e85301.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.85301
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
Time estimation is an essential prerequisite underlying various cognitive functions. Previous studies identified ‘sequential firing’ and ‘activity ramps’ as the primary neuron activity patterns in the medial frontal cortex (mPFC) that could convey information regarding time. However, the relationship between these patterns and the timing behavior has not been fully understood. In this study, we utilized in vivo calcium imaging of mPFC in rats performing a timing task. We observed cells that showed selective activation at trial start, end, or during the timing interval. By aligning long-term time-lapse datasets, we discovered that sequential patterns of time coding were stable over weeks, while cells coding for trial start or end showed constant dynamism. Furthermore, with a novel behavior design that allowed the animal to determine individual trial interval, we were able to demonstrate that real-time adjustment in the sequence procession speed closely tracked the trial-to-trial interval variations. And errors in the rats’ timing behavior can be primarily attributed to the premature ending of the time sequence. Together, our data suggest that sequential activity maybe a stable neural substrate that represents time under physiological conditions. Furthermore, our results imply the existence of a unique cell type in the mPFC that participates in the time-related sequences. Future characterization of this cell type could provide important insights in the neural mechanism of timing and related cognitive functions.
-
- Neuroscience
Granule cells of the cerebellum make up to 175,000 excitatory synapses on a single Purkinje cell, encoding the wide variety of information from the mossy fibre inputs into the cerebellar cortex. The granule cell axon is made of an ascending portion and a long parallel fibre extending at right angles, an architecture suggesting that synapses formed by the two segments of the axon could encode different information. There are controversial indications that ascending axon (AA) and parallel fibre (PF) synapse properties and modalities of plasticity are different. We tested the hypothesis that AA and PF synapses encode different information, and that the association of these distinct inputs to Purkinje cells might be relevant to the circuit and trigger plasticity, similar to the coincident activation of PF and climbing fibre inputs. Here, by recording synaptic currents in Purkinje cells from either proximal or distal granule cells (mostly AA and PF synapses, respectively), we describe a new form of associative plasticity between these two distinct granule cell inputs. We show for the first time that synchronous AA and PF repetitive train stimulation, with inhibition intact, triggers long-term potentiation (LTP) at AA synapses specifically. Furthermore, the timing of the presentation of the two inputs controls the outcome of plasticity and induction requires NMDAR and mGluR1 activation. The long length of the PFs allows us to preferentially activate the two inputs independently, and despite a lack of morphological reconstruction of the connections, these observations reinforce the suggestion that AA and PF synapses have different coding capabilities and plasticity that is associative, enabling effective association of information transmitted via granule cells.
