PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Tjeerd Jellema

Publications and source records attributed to Tjeerd Jellema.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Neural representations of perceived bodily actions using a categorical frame of reference.

In object-centered, or categorical, visual representations of an agent's actions, the spatial positions of (parts of) the body action are defined with respect to the principal axis of the agent, rather than in relation to the observer. Some cells in the superior temporal sulcus (STS) of the macaque monkey have been reported to use such a categorical frame of reference to code for bodily postures and actions, but their small numbers prevented a detailed investigation. Here we report for the first time that anterior sites in the STS contain a relatively large number of cells that use an object-centered frame of reference to code for animate objects and their actions. We further show that these cells are selectively responsive to much more restricted sections of an action trajectory than previously thought, and that they generalize over highly unusual, hitherto untested, orientations (such as upside-down walking). Quite remarkably, some cells coded for the position of a body part not only with respect to the object's body structure, but also with respect to objects in the immediate surrounding, such as the supporting substrate the agent was standing on. We illustrate these properties using three cell populations: one responding to rotations of the upper body with respect to the lower body, one responding to forward or backward walking actions, and one responding to flexions of the knees. We discuss a possible role for the object-centered STS cell populations in representing the abstract object structure of flexible, animate objects, which could enable their recognition even when presented in highly unusual poses. We further discuss their possible role in representing goal-directed or intentional actions, and in imitation.

Animals↗

Delayed response to animate implied motion in human motion processing areas.

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.

Adult↗

Single cell integration of animate form, motion and location in the superior temporal cortex of the macaque monkey.

This study investigated the cellular mechanisms in the anterior part of the superior temporal sulcus (STSa) that underlie the integration of different features of the same visually perceived animate object. Three visual features were systematically manipulated: form, motion and location. In 58% of a population of cells selectively responsive to the sight of a walking agent, the location of the agent significantly influenced the cell's response. The influence of position was often evident in intricate two- and three-way interactions with the factors form and/or motion. For only one of the 31 cells tested, the response could be explained by just a single factor. For all other cells at least two factors, and for half of the cells (52%) all three factors, played a significant role in controlling responses. Our findings support a reformulation of the Ungerleider and Mishkin model, which envisages a subdivision of the visual processing into a ventral 'what' and a dorsal 'where' stream. We demonstrated that at least part of the temporal cortex ('what' stream) makes ample use of visual spatial information. Our findings open up the prospect of a much more elaborate integration of visual properties of animate objects at the single cell level. Such integration may support the comprehension of animals and their actions.

Animals↗

Perceptual history influences neural responses to face and body postures.

We show that under natural viewing, the responses of cells the temporal lobe of the macaque to the sight of static head body postures is controlled by the sight of immediately actions. Cells in the anterior part of the superior sulcus responded vigorously to the sight of a face or posture that followed a particular body action, but not when it followed other actions. The effective action or posture presented in isolation or in different sequences failed to produce a response. Our results demonstrate that cells in the temporal cortex could support the formation of expectations about impending behavior of others.

Action Potentials↗

Cells in monkey STS responsive to articulated body motions and consequent static posture: a case of implied motion?

We show that populations of visually responsive cells in the anterior part of the superior temporal sulcus (STSa) of the macaque monkey code for the sight of both specific articulated body actions and the consequent articulated static body postures. We define articulated actions as actions where one body part (e.g. a limb or head) moves with respect to the remainder of the body which remains static; conversely non-articulated actions are actions where the equivalent body parts do not move with respect to each other but move as one. Similarly, articulated static body postures contain a torsion or rotation between parts, while non-articulated postures do not. Cells were tested with the sight of articulated and non-articulated actions followed by the resultant articulated or non-articulated static body postures. In addition, the static body postures that formed the start and end of the actions were tested in isolation. The cells studied did not respond to the sight of non-articulated static posture, which formed the starting-point of the action, but responded vigorously to the articulated static posture that formed the end-point of the action. Other static postures resembling the articulated end-point posture, but which were in a more relaxed muscular state (i.e. non-articulated), did not evoke responses. The cells did not respond to body actions that were less often associated with the effective static articulated postures. Our results suggest that the cells' responses were related to the implied action rather than the static posture per se. We propose that the neural representations in STSa for actual biological motion may also extend to biological motion implied from static postures. These representations could play a role in producing the activity in the medial temporal/medial superior temporal (V5(MT)/MST) areas reported in fMRI studies when subjects view still photographs of people in action.

Action Potentials↗