2001; Schubotz and von Cramon 2003; Schubotz 2007). Such task- and body part-specific activations could explain why MOT was affected by finger tapping: because the brain regions (presumably subregions of the PM) that are engaged in the planning of rhythmic, spatially defined actions (assuming that tapping sequences are spatially coded), as well as the execution of these actions by means of finger and concomitant eye movements, are also engaged in MOT. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Previous fMRI studies have investigated brain activation during MOT (Culham et al. 1998, 2001; Jovicich et al. 2001; Howe et al. 2009). All four studies

compared an MOT condition (subjects had to track a subset of 2–5 out of 8–10 objects) with a passive viewing condition Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical (moving circles without tracking instruction), revealing several loci of activation in the parietal cortex, such as the anterior and the posterior intraparietal sulcus and the superior parietal

lobule. Importantly, the contrast [MOT > passive viewing] also showed activation in frontal regions, namely in the dorsolateral Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical frontal cortex (DLFC; Culham et al. 1998, 2001; Howe et al. 2009). Furthermore, there was activation associated with tracking load (increasing activation with increasing number of tracked objects) in the left inferior precentral sulcus (Culham et al. 1998, 2001; Jovicich et al. 2001). Activations in the DLFC have been interpreted to refer to the frontal eye fields (FEF). FEF are crucially involved in oculomotor control (Paus 1996) and processes of spatial attention (Corbetta 1998; also see Discussion Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical for a review of FEF involvement). Activation in the FEF was thus attributed to generation and Bosutinib suppression of involuntary eye movements and attention shifts during MOT (Culham et al. 1998, 2001;

Howe et al. 2009). Furthermore, Jovicich et al. (2001) interpreted activation in the DLFC to represent an Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical area they named “primary motor area,” assumed to reflect motor preparations prior to executing a response in form of a button press. Indeed, MOT required a response in the end of each trial, passive viewing did not (Jovicich et al. 2001). The authors discussed that this activation in the primary motor area might have concealed activation in the adjacent FEF. In turn, we propose that activation in the DLFC, as has Fossariinae been found by all four studies, refers to the FEF-adjacent PMd, partly concealed by FEF activation. Similarly, we propose that previously found activation in the inferior precentral sulcus (Culham et al. 2001; Jovicich et al. 2001) indicates involvement of the PMv, possibly reflecting sensorimotor prediction processes. That is, in accordance with previous behavioral results (Franconeri et al. 2006; Trick et al. 2006) and found brain activation maxima (Culham et al. 1998, 2001; Jovicich et al. 2001; Howe et al.