Cited by 111Visual perception and processing mechanismsMultisensory perception and integrationNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Neural processing of imminent collision in humans

Open access
Billington, Jac, Wilkie, Richard M., Field, David T., Wann, John P.·2011·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Detecting a looming object and its imminent collision is imperative to survival. For most humans, it is a fundamental aspect of daily activities such as driving, road crossing and participating in sport, yet little is known about how the brain both detects and responds to such stimuli. Here we use functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess neural response to looming stimuli in comparison with receding stimuli and motion-controlled static stimuli. We demonstrate for the first time that, in the human, the superior colliculus and the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus respond to looming in addition to cortical regions associated with motor preparation. We also implicate the anterior insula in making timing computations for collision events.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2010.1895

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Billington, J., Wilkie, R. M., Field, D. T., & Wann, J. P.
Affiliations
  • Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Corresponding author
Wann, John P.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2010-10-27
Volume
278
Issue
1711
Pages
1476-1481
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2095956597
Cited by
111
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/D055342/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
looming stimuli, collision detection, superior colliculus, pulvinar, thalamus, anterior insula, motor preparation, collision timing, threat detection, visual motion perception
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motion Perception, Photic Stimulation, Reaction Time, Superior Colliculi, Pulvinar

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