49 research outputs found
Is the direction of second-order, contrast-defined motion patterns visible to standard motion-energy detectors: A model answer?
No full textAbstractPrevious psychophysical studies (e.g., Smith & Ledgeway, 1997) have provided evidence that under some conditions, the detection of a particular class of stimuli (contrast-modulated static noise) widely employed to study second-order motion processing may be inadvertently based on encoding local imbalances in luminance motion energy. In particular when static noise composed of relatively large noise elements is used, direction-identification performance at threshold may actually be mediated by the same mechanisms that respond to first-order motion, due to the presence of persistent spatial clusters of noise elements of the same polarity. However, Benton and Johnston (1997) modeled the responses of conventional motion-energy detectors to contrast-modulated static noise patterns and found no evidence of any systematic directional biases in such stimuli when the mean opponent motion energy was used to quantify performance. In the present paper we sought to resolve this discrepancy and show that the precise manner in which computational models are implemented is crucial in determining their response to contrast-modulated, second-order motion patterns. In particular we demonstrate that by considering the information encapsulated by the peak (rather than the mean) opponent motion energy and the predominantly local nature of imbalances in motion energy that can arise in contrast-modulated static noise, it is possible to readily model the patterns of empirical results found
The spatial frequency and orientation selectivity of the mechanisms that extract motion-defined contours
No full textAbstractThe human visual system can undertake a specialized form of motion integration, one that enables the presence of extended spatial contours to be disambiguated from their backgrounds. We have shown previously that the visual system can selectively integrate local motion signals when their directions are along spatial contours and its efficiency is inversely related to the curvature of the contour involved (Ledgeway, T., & Hess, R. F. (2002). Vision Research, 42, 653–659). This integration primarily involves the direction, rather than the speed, of local motion signals. In the present study, we sought to investigate both the spatial frequency and orientation tuning of this specialized contour integration process, using a path detection paradigm. The results show that the tuning for spatial frequency is very broad, in line with previous studies that have examined this issue. In contrast, the orientation selectivity of the mechanism mediating contour extraction under these conditions is relatively narrowband. Thus, spatial frequency but not orientation pooling appears to take place prior to the extraction of motion-defined contours, a situation that is different from that previously shown for spatial contours composed of static, oriented elements
Discrimination of the speed and direction of global second-order motion in stochastic displays
No full textAbstractThe ability to integrate local second-order motion signals over space and time was examined using random-dot-kinematograms (RDKs) in which the dots were defined by spatial variation in the contrast, rather than luminance, of a random noise field. When either the speeds or the directions of the individual dots were selected at random from a range of possible values, globally the stimulus appeared to drift either in a single direction or at a single speed in a manner analogous to that reported previously for first-order (luminance-defined) RDKs. To quantify the precision with which observers could extract the global stimulus motion, speed- and direction-discrimination thresholds were measured using pairs of RDKs, one of which (the comparison) comprised dots whose speeds or directions were assigned stochastically and the other (the standard) comprised dots that all had the same drift direction and speed. Speed-discrimination thresholds were of the order of 8% and changed little as the range of dot speeds (bandwidth) of the comparison increased, in that performance was almost as good when the individual dot speeds were selected at random from a range spanning 3.84 deg/s as when all the dots moved at the same speed. There was a tendency for the perceived global speed of the comparison RDK to decrease as the speed bandwidth was increased and perceived speed tended to coincide with the geometric mean speed of the dots rather than the arithmetic mean speed. Direction-discrimination thresholds were lowest (∼4°) when the range of dot directions was less than 90° but increased markedly thereafter. Observers were able to perform both discrimination tasks when the lifetimes of the dots comprising the RDKs was reduced from 25 to 2 frames, a manipulation that prevented observers from determining the overall speed or direction of image motion from the extended trajectories of individual dots within the display. Thresholds under these conditions were somewhat higher but were otherwise comparable to those obtained with a dot lifetime of 25 frames. The similarities between the present results and those of previous studies that have employed first-order RDKs suggest that the extraction of the global speed and direction of each type of motion is likely to be based on computationally similar principles
The detection of direction-defined and speed-defined spatial contours: one mechanism or two?
No full textAbstractIt is now accepted that the visual system integrates local orientation information across space to define spatial contours [Vision Research 33 (1993) 173]. More recently, it has been shown that similar integration occurs for the direction of local motion signals, in different parts of the visual field, if they are aligned along the axis of a spatial contour [Vision Research 42 (2002) 653]. Here we ask whether similar spatial-linking rules hold for contours comprised of local elements that share only a common speed (but not direction), in the presence of background elements which collectively have the same mean speed as the contour but considerable random variation in the speeds of the individual elements. Furthermore we investigate the detection of spatial contours that are defined by a common speed that is different (both locally and globally) from that of the background elements. The results show that there is a significant, albeit relatively weak, speed-association field with preferential linking between spatially proximal elements that have similar speeds. Although a salient speed difference between the contour and the background elements enhances detection performance for motion-defined contours, it does so primarily via a different route to that of direction linking. We suggest that for motion-defined contours the Gestalt notions of “common fate” and “good continuity”, that describe the parsing of local velocity information into objects, boundaries and contours, are mediated via separate underlying perceptual mechanisms
Separate Detection of Moving Luminance and Contrast Modulations: Fact or Artifact?
No full textAbstractWe have investigated first-order artifacts in second-order motion perception. Subjects were required to identify the orientation and direction of a drifting sinusoidal contrast modulation. When the carrier consisted of static two-dimensional noise, performance often reflected the use of first-order artifacts that arise from stochastic local biases in the noise, rather than the detection of the contrast modulation per se. This stimulus, which has been used widely for studying second-order motion, therefore appears to be inappropriate for that purpose. In contrast, global distortion products arising from luminance non-linearities do not appear to provide usable artifacts. Two manipulations were employed to eliminate local first-order artifacts: the use of dynamic noise and the use of high-pass filtered static noise. These two manipulations gave similar results, which were quite different from those obtained with broadband static noise. We argue that performance with both of these image types reflects the activity of a true second-order motion mechanism. A characteristic property of this mechanism is that it cannot specify direction at the threshold for detecting orientation. Direction thresholds are around 50% higher than orientation thresholds when first-order artifacts are eliminated. Copyright © 1996 Elsevier Science Lt
Changes in perceived speed following adaptation to first-order and second-order motion
No full textAbstractTo investigate whether or not adaptation to second-order motion can cause changes in perceived speed, measurements of perceived speed were obtained for two varieties of motion: (i) contrast-modulated two-dimensional static noise (second-order motion); and (ii) luminance-modulated noise (first-order motion). The test stimulus (either first-order or second-order) was presented to one side of a central fixation spot and a comparison stimulus (always first-order) was simultaneously presented on the opposite side. The observer's task was to indicate which of the two motion stimuli appeared to drift faster. The perceived speed of the test stimulus was measured with and without prior adaptation to motion on one side of the fixation spot only (that of the test stimulus). The modulation depth of the adaptation stimulus was always half that of the test stimulus and all test patterns were equated for visibility. The pattern of results for second-order motion was similar to that for first-order motion. Typically, adaptation reduced perceived speed, particularly when the adaptation speed was faster than the test speed. However, when the adaptation speed was low relative to the test speed, increases in perceived speed were found. Cross-over adaptation effects between first-order and second-order motion were also observed. Robust velocity aftereffects were found for second-order motion when the noise was dynamic or was high-pass filtered, suggesting that first-order (luminance) artifacts were not responsible for the velocity aftereffects observed. We conclude that the perceived speeds of first-order and second-order motion appear to be encoded in human vision using similar computational principles (but not necessarily utilizing the same mechanism), since the same pattern of results was found for the two varieties of motion
Spatial summation of first-order and second-order motion in human vision
No full textAbstractThis study assessed spatial summation of first-order (luminance-defined) and second-order (contrast-defined) motion. Thresholds were measured for identifying the drift direction of 1c/deg., luminance-modulated and contrast-modulated dynamic noise drifting at temporal frequencies of 0.5, 2 and 8Hz. Image size varied from 0.125° to 16°. The effects of increasing image size on thresholds for luminance-modulated noise were also compared to those for luminance-defined gratings. In all cases, performance improved as image size increased. The rate at which performance improved with increasing image size was similar for all stimuli employed although the slopes corresponding to the initial improvement were steeper for first-order compared to second-order motion. The image sizes at which performance for first-order motion asymptote were larger than for second-order motion. In addition, findings showed that the minimum image size required to support reliable identification of the direction of moving stimuli is greater for second-order than first-order motion. Thus, although first-order and second-order motion processing have a number of properties in common, the visual system’s sensitivity to each type of motion as a function of image size is quite different
Spatial frequency selective masking of first-order and second-order motion in the absence of off-frequency `looking'
No full textAbstractConverging evidence suggests that, at least initially, first-order (luminance defined) and second-order (e.g. contrast defined) motion are processed independently in human vision. However, adaptation studies suggest that second-order motion, like first-order motion, may be encoded by spatial frequency selective mechanisms each operating over a limited range of scales. Nonetheless, the precise properties of these mechanisms are indeterminate since the spatial frequency selectivity of adaptation aftereffects may not necessarily represent the frequency tuning of the underlying units [Vision Research 37 (1997) 2685]. To address this issue we used visual masking to investigate the spatial-frequency tuning of the mechanisms that encode motion. A dual-masking paradigm was employed to derive estimates of the spatial tuning of motion sensors, in the absence of off-frequency `looking'. Modulation-depth thresholds for identifying the direction of a sinusoidal test pattern were measured over a 4-octave range (0.125–2 c/deg) in both the absence and presence of two counterphasing masks, simultaneously positioned above and below the test frequency. For second-order motion, the resulting masking functions were spatially bandpass in character and remained relatively invariant with changes in test spatial frequency, masking pattern modulation depth and the temporal properties of the noise carrier. As expected, bandpass spatial frequency tuning was also found for first-order motion. This provides compelling evidence that the mechanisms responsible for encoding each variety of motion exhibit spatial frequency selectivity. Thus, although first-order and second-order motion may be encoded independently, they must utilise similar computational principles
Sensitivity to spatial and temporal modulations of first-order and second-order motion
No full textAbstractThis study characterises the spatiotemporal “window of visibility” for first-order motion (luminance-modulated noise) and three varieties of second-order motion (contrast-modulated, polarity-modulated and spatial length-modulated noise). Direction-identification thresholds (minimum modulation depth producing 79.4% correct) were measured for each motion pattern (acuity permitting) over a five octave range of spatial and temporal frequencies (0.5–16c/deg and 0.5–16Hz respectively). Thresholds were converted into modulation sensitivity (1/threshold). For first-order motion patterns, sensitivity functions were generally bandpass. However, for second-order motion patterns, functions were predominantly lowpass in nature. In particular, the functions corresponding to contrast-modulated and polarity-modulated noise were virtually identical in terms of shape and sensitivity. However, sensitivity to modulations of spatial length was extremely poor and more lowpass, suggesting that additional strategies, perhaps a feature-based system, may be required for encoding motion of images of this type
Failure of direction identification for briefly presented second-order motion stimuli: evidence for weak direction selectivity of the mechanisms encoding motion
No full textAbstractWe sought to investigate why the direction of second-order motion, unlike first-order motion, cannot be identified when the stimulus exposure duration is brief (<200 ms). In a series of experiments observers identified both the orientation (vertical or horizontal) and the direction (left, right, down or up) of a drifting sinusoidal modulation (0.93 c/°) in either the luminance (first order) or the contrast (second order) of a two-dimensional noise carrier. All motion stimuli were equated for visibility, and the duration was varied using the method of constant stimuli. Performance was measured for second-order motion over a range of drift temporal frequencies (0.63–5.04 Hz) and for first-order motion stimuli composed of two, opposite drifting modulations in luminance of unequal modulation depth. Orientation-identification performance was nearly 100% correct for both first-order and second-order motion stimuli, even at the briefest stimulus duration tested (26.49 ms). Direction identification for first-order motion was also typically good with brief presentations, but was poor for second-order motion when the exposure duration was <∼200 ms. Importantly increasing either the drift temporal frequency of second-order motion or the bidirectional nature of the first-order motion patterns produced comparable levels of performance for the two varieties of motion (i.e. the minimum duration required for reliable direction identification could be equated). As orientation-identification performance for the first-order and second-order motion stimuli was comparably good and minimally affected by duration, the marked differences on the direction-identification task must be specific to mechanisms that encode drift direction, rather than spatial structure. We propose that second-order motion detectors are much less selective for stimulus direction than first-order motion sensors, and thus are more susceptible to the deleterious effects of limiting stimulus duration (which introduces spurious motion in the opposite direction, particularly at low drift rates). Alternative explanations based on the delayed propagation of second-order motion signals or the temporal characteristics of the underlying motion mechanisms are not supported by our findings
