Article

Simultaneous motion contrast across space: Involvement of second-order motion?

Information Science Research Laboratory, NTT Basic Research Laboratories, 3-1 Morinosato-Wakamiya, Atsugi-shi, Kanagawa 243-01, Japan; Department of Psychology, Faculty of Letters, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Vision Research (Impact Factor: 2.14). 02/1997; DOI:10.1016/S0042-6989(96)00112-5

ABSTRACT A static or counterphase (target) grating surrounded by drifting (inducer) gratings is perceived to move in the direction opposite that of the inducers. We compared the relative magnitudes of these simultaneous motion contrast generated by both first-order and second-order stimuli. The first-order stimuli were sinusoidal luminance-modulations of a uniform field, and the second-order stimuli were sinusoidal contrast-modulations of a random-dot field. When the target was a static grating, the second-order stimuli induced little motion contrast, while the first-order stimuli of the same effective contrast produced clear motion contrast. When the target was a counterphase grating, both first- and second-order stimuli produced clear motion contrast. These results are discussed in relation to the involvement of second-order motion pathways in the relative-motion processing, and the two types of motion aftereffects obtained with static and dynamic test stimuli.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
47 Views
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was two-fold. First we examined whether visible motion appearance was altered by the spatial interaction between invisible and visible motion. We addressed this issue by means of simultaneous motion contrast, in which a horizontal test grating with a counterphase luminance modulation was seen to have the opposite motion direction to a peripheral inducer grating with unidirectional upward or downward motion. Using a mirror stereoscope, observers viewed the inducer and test gratings with one eye, and continuous flashes of colorful squares forming an annulus shape with the other eye. The continuous flashes rendered the inducer subjectively invisible. The observers' task was to report whether the test grating moved upward or downward. Consequently, simultaneous motion contrast was observed even when the inducer was invisible (Experiment 1). Second, we examined whether the observers could correctly respond to the direction of invisible motion: It was impossible (Experiment 2).
    Consciousness and Cognition 02/2009; 18(1):168-75. · 2.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: How does nearby motion affect the perceived speed of a target region? When a central drifting Gabor patch is surrounded by translating noise, its speed can be misperceived over a fourfold range. Typically, when a surround moves in the same direction, perceived centre speed is reduced; for opposite-direction surrounds it increases. Measuring this illusion for a variety of surround properties reveals that the motion context effects are a saturating function of surround speed (Experiment I) and contrast (Experiment II). Our analyses indicate that the effects are consistent with a subtractive process, rather than with speed being averaged over area. In Experiment III we exploit known properties of the motion system to ask where these surround effects impact. Using 2D plaid stimuli, we find that surround-induced shifts in perceived speed of one plaid component produce substantial shifts in perceived plaid direction. This indicates that surrounds exert their influence early in processing, before pattern motion direction is computed. These findings relate to ongoing investigations of surround suppression for direction discrimination, and are consistent with single-cell findings of direction-tuned suppressive and facilitatory interactions in primary visual cortex (V1).
    Vision research 11/2009; 50(2):193-201. · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As stimulus size increases, the direction of high-contrast moving stimuli becomes increasingly difficult to perceive. This counterintuitive effect, termed spatial suppression, is believed to reflect antagonistic center-surround interactions--mechanisms that play key roles in tasks requiring sensitivity to relative motion. It is unknown, however, whether second-order motion also exhibits spatial suppression. To test this hypothesis, we measured direction discrimination thresholds for first- and second-order stimuli of varying sizes. The results revealed increasing thresholds with increasing size for first-order stimuli but demonstrated no spatial suppression of second-order motion. This selective impairment of first-order motion predicts increasing predominance of second-order cues as stimulus size increases. We confirmed this prediction by utilizing compound stimuli that contain first- and second-order information moving in opposite directions. Specifically, we found that for large stimuli, motion perception becomes increasingly determined by the direction of second-order cues. Overall, our findings show a lack of spatial suppression for second-order stimuli, suggesting that the second-order system may have distinct functional roles, roles that do not require high sensitivity to relative motion.
    Journal of Vision 01/2011; 11(13). · 2.48 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
0 Downloads
Available from