Quantifying the timing (duration and frequency) of brief visual events is vital to human perception, multisensory integration and action planning. For example, this allows us to follow and interact with the precise timing of speech and sports. Here we investigate how visual event timing is represented and transformed across the brain’s hierarchy: from sensory processing areas, through multisensory integration areas, to frontal action planning areas. We hypothesized that the dynamics of neural responses to sensory events in sensory processing areas allows derivation of event timing representations. This would allow higher-level processes such as multisensory integration and action planning to use sensory timing information, without the need for specialized central pacemakers or processes. Using 7T fMRI and neural model-based analyses, we found responses that monotonically increase in amplitude with visual event duration and frequency, becoming increasingly clear from primary visual cortex to lateral occipital visual field maps. Beginning in area MT/V5, we found a gradual transition from monotonic to tuned responses, with response amplitudes peaking at different event timings in different recording sites. While monotonic response components were limited to the retinotopic location of the visual stimulus, timing-tuned response components were independent of the recording sites' preferred visual field positions. These tuned responses formed a network of topographically organized timing maps in superior parietal, postcentral and frontal areas. From anterior to posterior timing maps, multiple events were increasingly integrated, response selectivity narrowed, and responses focused increasingly on the middle of the presented timing range. These results suggest that responses to event timing are transformed from the human brain’s sensory areas to the association cortices, with the event’s temporal properties being increasingly abstracted from the response dynamics and locations of early sensory processing. The resulting abstracted representation of event timing is then propagated through areas implicated in multisensory integration and action planning.

Cortical functions result from the conjoint activity of different, reciprocally connected areas working together as large-scale functionally specialized networks. In the macaque brain, neural tracers and functional data have provided evidence for functionally specialized large-scale cortical networks involving temporal, parietal, and frontal areas. One of these networks, the lateral grasping network, appears to play a primary role in controlling hand action organization and recognition. Available functional and tractograpy data suggest the existence of a human counterpart of this network.

The ability to decide and act autonomously is a distinctive feature of human cognition. From a motor neurophysiology viewpoint, these 'voluntary' actions can be distinguished by the lack of an obvious triggering sensory stimulus: the action is considered to be a product of thought, rather than a reflex result of a specific input. A reverse engineering approach shows that such actions are caused by neurons of the primary cortex, which in turn depend on medial frontal areas, and finally a combination of prefrontal cortical connections and subcortical drive from basal ganglia loops. One traditional marker of voluntary action is the EEG readiness potential (RP), recorded over the frontal cortex prior to voluntary actions. However, the interpretation of this signal remains controversial, and very few experimental studies have attempted to link the RP to the thought process that lead to voluntary action. In this talk, I will report new studies that show learning an internal model about the optimum delay at which to act influences the amplitude of the RP. More generally, a scientific understanding of voluntariness and autonomy will require new neurocognitive paradigms connecting thought and action.

We will start our talk with a short video of our research, illustrating methods (some old and new) and findings that have provided our current understanding of how visual capabilities develop in infancy and early childhood. However, our research poses some outstanding questions. We will briefly discuss three issues, which are linked by a common focus on the development of visual attentional processing: (1) How do recurrent cortical loops contribute to development? Cortical selectivity (e.g., to orientation, motion, and binocular disparity) develops in the early months of life. However, these systems are not purely feedforward but depend on parallel pathways, with recurrent feedback loops playing a critical role. The development of diverse networks, particularly for motion processing, may explain changes in dynamic responses and resolve developmental data obtained with different methodologies. One possible role for these loops is in top-down attentional control of visual processing. (2) Why do hyperopic infants become strabismic (cross-eyes)? Binocular interaction is a particularly sensitive area of development. Standard clinical accounts suppose that long-sighted (hyperopic) refractive errors require accommodative effort, putting stress on the accommodation-convergence link that leads to its breakdown and strabismus. Our large-scale population screening studies of 9-month infants question this: hyperopic infants are at higher risk of strabismus and impaired vision (amblyopia and impaired attention) but these hyperopic infants often under- rather than over-accommodate. This poor accommodation may reflect poor early attention processing, possibly a ‘soft sign’ of subtle cerebral dysfunction. (3) What do many neurodevelopmental disorders have in common? Despite similar cognitive demands, global motion perception is much more impaired than global static form across diverse neurodevelopmental disorders including Down and Williams Syndromes, Fragile-X, Autism, children with premature birth and infants with perinatal brain injury. These deficits in motion processing are associated with deficits in other dorsal stream functions such as visuo-motor co-ordination and attentional control, a cluster we have called ‘dorsal stream vulnerability’. However, our neuroimaging measures related to motion coherence in typically developing children suggest that the critical areas for individual differences in global motion sensitivity are not early motion-processing areas such as V5/MT, but downstream parietal and frontal areas for decision processes on motion signals. Although these brain networks may also underlie attentional and visuo-motor deficits , we still do not know when and how these deficits differ across different disorders and between individual children. Answering these questions provide necessary steps, not only increasing our scientific understanding of human visual brain development, but also in designing appropriate interventions to help each child achieve their full potential.