The nature of foveal representation

Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Volumn 5, Issue 9, 2004, Pages 729-735

  Lavidor, Michal ^a   Walsh, Vincent ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOR; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MONKEY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA FOVEA; REVIEW; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL FIELD; VISUAL NERVOUS SYSTEM; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ANIMALS; BRAIN MAPPING; FOVEA CENTRALIS; HUMANS; VISUAL CORTEX; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 4344716527     PISSN: 1471003X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrn1498     Document Type: Review

References (81)

1. Descartes, R. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume 1. Translated by Cottingham, J. Stoothoff, R. & Murdoch, D. 105-106 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985).
2. Brysbaert, M. Interhemispheric transfer and the processing of foveally presented stimuli. Behav. Brain Res. 64, 151-161 (1994).
3. Choplin, N. & Edwards, R. Visual Fields (SLACK Incorporated, New Jersey, 1998).
4. Silverthorn, D. U. Human Physiology: an Integrated Approach 2nd edition (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2000).
5. Bunt, A. H. & Minckler, D. S. Foveal sparing: new anatomical evidence for bilateral representation of the central retina. Arch. Ophthalmol. 95, 1445-1447 (1977).
6. Stone, J. The naso-temporal division of the cat's retina. J. Comp. Neurol. 136, 585-600 (1966).
7. Stone, J., Leicester, J. & Sherman, S. M. The nasotemporal division of the monkey's retina. J. Comp. Neurol. 150, 333-348 (1973).
8. Terao, N., Inatomi, A. & Maeda, T. Anatomical evidence for the overlapped distribution of ipsilaterally and contralaterally projecting ganglion cells to the lateral geniculate nucleus in the cat retina: a morphologic study with fluorescent tracers. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 23, 796-798 (1982).
9. Leventhal, A. G., Ault, S. J. & Vitek, D. J. The nasotemporal division in primate retina: the neural bases of macular sparing and splitting. Science 240, 66-67 (1988).
10. Leventhal, A. G., Thompson, K. G. & Liu, D. Retinal ganglion cells within the foveola of New World (Saimiri sciureus) and Old World (Macaca fascicularis) monkeys. J. Comp. Neurol. 338, 242-254 (1993).
11. Fukuda, Y., Sawai, H., Watanabe, M., Wakakuwa, K. & Morigiwa, K. Nasotemporal overlap of crossed and uncrossed retinal ganglion cell projections in the Japanese monkey (Macaca fuscata). J. Neurosci. 9, 2353-2373 (1989).
12. Chalupa, L. M. & Lia, B. The nasotemporal division of retinal ganglion cells with crossed and uncrossed projections in the fetal rhesus monkey. J. Neurosci. 11, 191-202 (1991).
13. Tootell, R. B. H., Switkes, E., Silverman, M. S. & Hamilton, S. L. Functional anatomy of macaque striate cortex: II. Retinotopic organization. J. Neurosci. 8, 1531-1568 (1988).
14. Cowey, A. & Rolls, E. Human cortical magnification factor in man its relation to visual acuity. Exp. Brain Res. 21, 447-454 (1974).
15. Portin, K., Vanni, S., Virsu, V. & Hari, R. Stronger occipital cortical activation to lower than upper visual field stimuli. Neuromagnetic recordings. Exp. Brain Res. 124, 287-294 (1999).
16. Williams, A. L., Singh, K. D. & Smith, A. T. Surround modulation measured with functional MRI in the human visual cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 89, 525-533 (2003).
17. Sereno, M. I. et al. Borders of multiple visual areas in human revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Science 288, 889-693 (1995).
18. Portin, K., Salenius, S., Salmelin, R. & Hari, R. Activation of the human occipital and parietal cortex by pattern and luminance stimuli: neuromagnetic measurements. Cereb. Cortex 8, 253-260 (1998).
19. Harvey, L. O. Jr. Single representation of the visual midline in humans. Neuropsychologia 16, 601-610 (1978).
20. Haun, F. Functional dissociation of the hemispheres using foveal visual input. Neuropsychologia 16, 725-733 (1978).
21. Lines, C. R. & Milner, A. D. Nasotemporal overlap in the human retina investigated by means of simple reaction time to lateralized light flash. Exp. Brain Res. 50, 166-172 (1983).
22. Gazzaniga, M. The Bisected Brain (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1970).
23. Fendrich, R. & Gazzaniga, M. S. Evidence of foveal splitting in a commissurotomy patient. Neuropsychologia 27, 273-281 (1989).
24. Fendrich, R., Wessinger, C. M. & Gazzaniga, M. S. Nasotemporal overlap at the retinal vertical meridian: investigations with a callosotomy patient. Neuropsychologia 34, 637-646 (1996).
25. Gazzaniga, M. S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain 123, 1293-1326 (2000).
26. Sugishita, M., Hamilton, C. R., Sakuma, I. & Hemmi, I. Hemispheric representation of the central retina of commissurotomized participants. Neuropsychologia 32, 399-415 (1994).
27. Huber, A. Homonymous hemianopia after occipital lobectomy. Am. J. Opthalmol. 54, 623-629 (1962).
28. Trauzettel-Klosinski, S. & Reinhard, J. The vertical border in hemianopia and its significance for fixation and reading. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 39, 2177-2186 (1998).
29. Williams., D. & Gassel, M. M. Visual function in patients with homonymous hemianopia. I. The visual fields. Brain 85, 175-250 (1962).
30. Ehlers, N. Quadrant sparing of the macula. Acta Ophthalmol. 53, 393-402 (1975).
31. Sugishita, M., Hemmi, I., Sakuma, I., Beppu, H. & Shiokawa, Y. The problem of macular sparing after unilateral occipital lesions. J. Neurol. 241, 1-9 (1993).
32. Celesia, G. G., Meredith, J. T. & Ruff, K. Perimetry, visual evoked potentials and visual evoked spectrum array in homonymous hemianopia. J. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 56, 16-30 (1983).
33. Leff, A. P. A historical review of the representation of the visual field in primary visual cortex with special reference to the neural mechanisms underlying macular sparing. Brain Lang. 88, 268-278 (2004).
34. Leff, A. P. et al. Impaired reading in patients with right hemianopia. Ann. Neurol. 47, 171-178 (2000).
35. Bischoff, P., Lang, J. & Huber, A. Macular sparing as a perimetric artifact. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 119, 72-79 (1995).
36. Horton, J. C. & Hoyt, W. F. The representation of the visual field in human striate cortex: a revision of the classic Holmes map. Arch. Ophthalmol. 109, 816-824 (1991).
37. Smith, C. G. & Richardson, W. F. G. The course and distribution of the arteries supplying the visual (striate) cortex. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 61, 1391-1396 (1966).
38. Bouma, H. Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. Vision Res. 13, 767-782 (1973).
39. Bub, D. N. & Lewine, J. Different modes of word recognition in the left and right visual fields. Brain Lang. 33, 161-188 (1988).
40. Ellis A. W., Young A. W. & Anderson, C. Modes of word recognition in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Brain Lang. 35, 254-273 (1988).
41. Lavidor, M., Ellis, A. W., Shillcock, R. & Bland, T. Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: effects of word length. Cogn. Brain Res. 12, 265-272 (2001).
42. Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T. & Besner, D. In Attention and Performance VI: The Psychology of Reading (ed. Dornic, S.) 535-555 (Academic, London, 1977).
43. Andrews, S. The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: resolving neighbourhood conflicts. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 4, 439-461 (1997).
44. Lavidor, M., Hayes, A., Shillcock, R. & Ellis, A. W. Evaluating a split processing model of visual word recognition: effects of orthographic neighborhood size. Brain Lang. 88, 312-320 (2004).
45. Shillcock, R., Ellison, T. M. & Monaghan, P. Eye-fixation behavior, lexical storage and visual word recognition in a split processing model. Psychol. Rev. 107, 824-851 (2000).
46. Whitney, C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: the SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 8, 221-243 (2001).
47. Lavidor, M., Ellison, A. & Walsh, V. Examination of a split-processing model of visual word recognition: a magnetic stimulation study. Vis. Cogn. 10, 341-362 (2003).
48. Lavidor, M. & Walsh, V. A magnetic stimulation examination of orthographic neighbourhood effects in visual word recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 354-363 (2003).
49. O'Regan, J. K. in Eye Movements: Cognition and Visual Perception (eds Fisher, D. F., Monty, R. A. & Senders, J. W.) 289-298 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1981).
50. O'Regan, J. K. & Jacobs, A. M. Optimal viewing position effect in word recognition: a challenge to the current theory. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 18, 185-197 (1992).
51. Enquist, M. & Arak, A. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 10, 169-172 (1994).
52. Wenderoth, P. The salience of vertical symmetry. Perception 23, 221-236 (1994).
53. Berardi, N. & Fiorentini, A. Visual field asymmetries in pattern discrimination: a sign of asymmetry in cortical visual field representation? Vision Res. 31, 1831-1836 (1991).
54. Evans, C. S., Wenderoth, P. & Cheng, K. Detection of bilateral symmetry in complex biological images. Perception 29, 31-42 (2000).
55. Gurnsey, R., Herbert, A. M. & Kenemy, J. Bilateral symmetry embedded in noise is detected accurately only at fixation. Vision Res. 38, 3795-3803 (1998).
56. Tyler, C. W., Hardage, L. & Miller, R. Multiple mechanisms in the detection of mirror symmetry. Spatial Vision 9, 79-100 (1999).
57. Tyler, C. W. & Hardage, L. in Human Symmetry Perception and its Computational Analysis (ed. Tyler, C. W.) 157-171 (VSP Publishers, The Netherlands, 1996).
58. Lee, T. S., Mumford, D., Romero, R. & Lamme, V. A. The role of the primary visual cortex in higher level vision. Vision Res. 38, 2429-2454 (1998).
59. Wenderoth, P. in Human Symmetry Perception and its Computational Analysis (ed. Tyler, C. W.) 49-69 (VSP Publishers, The Netherlands, 1996).
60. Walsh, V. & Butler, S. The effects of visual cortex lesions on the perception of rotated shapes. Behav. Brain Res. 76, 127-142 (1996).
61. Le Grand, R., Mondloch, C. J., Maurer, D. & Brent, H. P. Expert face processing requires visual input to the right hemisphere during infancy. Nature Neurosci. 6, 1108-1112 (2003).
62. Liegeois, F. & de Schonen, S. Simultaneous attention in the two visual hemifields and interhemispheric integration: a developmental study on 20- to 26-month-old infants. Neuropsychologia 35, 351-385 (1997).
63. Mohr, B., Landgrebe, A. & Schweinberger, S. R. Interhemispheric cooperation for familiar but not unfamiliar face processing. Neuropsychologia 40, 1841-1848 (2002).
64. Schweinberger, S. R., Baird, L. M., Blumler, M., Kaufmann, J. M. & Mohr, B. Interhemispheric cooperation for face recognition but not for affective facial expressions. Neuropsychologia 41, 407-414 (2003).
65. Yovel, G., Paller, K. & Levy, J. Putting the brain back together: Mechanisms of interhemispheric integration in face perception. J. Vision 2, 595a (2002).
66. Tanaka, J. W. & Farah, M. J. Parts and wholes in face recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 46A, 225-245 (1993).
67. Luh, K. & Levy, J. Interhemispheric cooperation: left is left and right is right, but sometimes the twain shall meet. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 21, 1243-1258 (1995).
68. Young, A. W., Hellawell, D. & Hay, D. C. Configurational information in face perception. Perception 16, 747-759 (1987).
69. Diamond, R. & Carey, S. Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 115, 107-117 (1986).
70. Gauthier, I. et al. The fusiform 'face area' is part of a network that processes faces at the individual level. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12, 495-504 (2000).
71. Brysbaert, M. The importance of interhemispheric transfer for foveal vision: a factor that has been overlooked in theories of visual word recognition and object perception. Brain Lang. 88, 259-267 (2004).
72. Poffenberger, A. T. Reaction time to retinal stimulation with specific reference to the time lost in conduction through nerve centres. Arch. Psychol. 23, 1-73 (1912).
73. Brown, W. S., Jeeves, M. A., Dietrich, R. & Burnison, D. S. Bilateral field advantage and evoked potential interhemispheric transmission in commissurotomy and callosal agenesis. Neuropsychologia 37, 1165-1180 (1999).
74. Rugg, M. D., Lines, C. R. & Milner, A. D. Visual evoked potentials to lateralized visual stimuli and the measurement of interhemispheric transmission time. Neuropsychologia 22, 215-225 (1984).
75. Corballis, M. C. Hemispheric interactions in simple reaction time. Neuropsychologia 40, 423-434 (2002).
76. Whitney, C. Position-specific effects within the SERIOL framework of letter-position coding. Connection Sci. 13, 235-255 (2001).
77. Whitney, C. An explanation of the length effect for rotated words. Cogn. Syst. Res. 3, 113-119 (2002).
78. Monaghan, P. & Pollmann, S. Division of labour between the hemispheres for complex but not simple tasks: an implemented connectionist model. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 132, 379-399 (2003).
79. Monaghan, P. & Shillcock, R. C. Hemispheric asymmetries in cognitive modelling: Connectionist modelling of unilateral visual neglect. Psychol. Rev. 111, 283-308 (2004).
80. Amassian, V. E. et al. Suppression of visual perception by magnetic coil stimulation of human occipital cortex. J. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 74, 458-462 (1989).
81. Potts, G. F. et al. Visual hemi field mapping using transcranial magnetic stimulation coregistered with cortical surfaces derived from magnetic resonance images. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 15, 344-350 (1998).