Cited by 131Tactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integrationNeuroscience and Music Perception

Decoding the direction of auditory motion in blind humans

Wolbers, Thomas, Zahorik, Pavel, Giudice, Nicholas A.·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Accurate processing of nonvisual stimuli is fundamental to humans with visual impairments. In this population, moving sounds activate an occipito-temporal region thought to encompass the equivalent of monkey area MT+, but it remains unclear whether the signal carries information beyond the mere presence of motion. To address this important question, we tested whether the processing in this region retains functional properties that are critical for accurate motion processing and that are well established in the visual modality. Specifically, we focussed on the property of 'directional selectivity', because MT+ neurons in non-human primates fire preferentially to specific directions of visual motion. Recent neuroimaging studies have revealed similar properties in sighted humans by successfully decoding different directions of visual motion from fMRI activation patterns. Here we used fMRI and multivariate pattern classification to demonstrate that the direction in which a sound is moving can be reliably decoded from dorsal occipito-temporal activation in the blind. We also show that classification performance is at chance (i) in a control region in posterior parietal cortex and (ii) when motion information is removed and subjects only hear a sequence of static sounds presented at the same start and end positions. These findings reveal that information about the direction of auditory motion is present in dorsal occipito-temporal responses of blind humans. As such, this area, which appears consistent with the hMT+ complex in the sighted, provides crucial information for the generation of a veridical percept of moving non-visual stimuli.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.04.266

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolbers, T., Zahorik, P., & Giudice, N. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • University of Maine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Wolbers, Thomas
  • Giudice, Nicholas A.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-05
Volume
56
Issue
2
Pages
681-687
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147187913
Cited by
131
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (BCS-0745328)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
Keywords
auditory motion, visual impairment, hMT+, direction selectivity, posterior parietal cortex, multivariate pattern classification
MeSH terms
Adult, Auditory Perception, Blindness, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Movement, Persons with Visual Disabilities, Visually Impaired Persons

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review