Mice are becoming an increasingly popular model for investigating the neural substrates of visual processing and higher cognitive functions. To validate the translation of mouse visual attention and sensorimotor processing to humans, we compared their performance in the same visual task. Mice and human participants judged the orientation of a grating presented on either the right or left side in the visual field. To induce shifts of spatial attention, we varied the stimulus probability on each side. As expected, human participants showed faster RTs and a higher accuracy for the side with a higher probability, a well-established effect of visual attention. The attentional effect was only present in mice when their response was slow. Although the task demanded a judgment of grating orientation, the accuracy of the mice was strongly affected by whether the side of the stimulus corresponded to the side of the behavioral response. This stimulus–response compatibility (Simon) effect was much weaker in humans and only significant for their fastest responses. Both species exhibited a speed–accuracy trade-off in their responses, because slower responses were more accurate than faster responses. We found that mice typically respond very fast, which contributes to the stronger stimulus–response compatibility and weaker attentional effects, which were only apparent in the trials with slowest responses. Humans responded slower and had stronger attentional effects, combined with a weak influence of stimulus–response compatibility, which was only apparent in trials with fast responses. We conclude that spatial attention and stimulus–response compatibility influence the responses of humans and mice but that strategy differences between species determine the dominance of these effects.

To investigate form-related activity in motion-sensitive cortical areas, we recorded cell responses to animate implied motion in macaque middle temporal (MT) and medial superior temporal (MST) cortex and investigated these areas using fMRI in humans. In the single-cell studies, we compared responses with static images of human or monkey figures walking or running left or right with responses to the same human and monkey figures standing or sitting still. We also investigated whether the view of the animate figure (facing left or right) that elicited the highest response was correlated with the preferred direction for moving random dot patterns. First, figures were presented inside the cell's receptive field. Subsequently, figures were presented at the fovea while a dynamic noise pattern was presented at the cell's receptive field location. The results show that MT neurons did not discriminate between figures on the basis of the implied motion content. Instead, response preferences for implied motion correlated with preferences for low-level visual features such as orientation and size. No correlation was found between the preferred view of figures implying motion and the preferred direction for moving random dot patterns. Similar findings were obtained in a smaller population of MST cortical neurons. Testing human MT+ responses with fMRI further corroborated the notion that low-level stimulus features might explain implied motion activation in human MT+. Together, these results suggest that prior human imaging studies demonstrating animate implied motion processing in area MT+ can be best explained by sensitivity for low-level features rather than sensitivity for the motion implied by animate figures.

Viewing static pictures of running humans evokes neural activity in the dorsal motion-sensitive cortex. To establish whether this response arises from direction-selective neurons that are also involved in real motion processing, we measured the visually evoked potential to implied motion following adaptation to static or moving random dot patterns. The implied motion response was defined as the difference between evoked potentials to pictures with and without implied motion. Interaction between real and implied motion was found as a modulation of this difference response by the preceding motion adaptation. The amplitude of the implied motion response was significantly reduced after adaptation to motion in the same direction as the implied motion, compared to motion in the opposite direction. At 280 msec after stimulus onset, the average difference in amplitude reduction between opposite and same adapted direction was 0.5 μV on an average implied motion amplitude of 2.0 μV. These results indicate that the response to implied motion arises from direction-selective motion-sensitive neurons. This is consistent with interactions between real and implied motion processing at a neuronal level.

Viewing static photographs of objects in motion evokes higher fMRI activation in the human medial temporal complex (MT+) than looking at similar photographs without this implied motion. As MT+ is traditionally thought to be involved in motion perception (and not in form perception), this finding suggests feedback from object-recognition areas onto MT+. To investigate this hypothesis, we recorded extracranial potentials evoked by the sight of photographs of biological agents with and without implied motion. The difference in potential between responses to pictures with and without implied motion was maximal between 260 and 400 msec after stimulus onset. Source analysis of this difference revealed one bilateral, symmetrical dipole pair in the occipital lobe. This area also showed a response to real motion, but approximately 100 msec earlier than the implied motion response. The longer latency of the implied motion response in comparison to the real motion response is consistent with a feedback projection onto MT+ following object recognition in higher-level temporal areas.