PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M J van der Smagt

Publications and source records attributed to M J van der Smagt.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Slow and fast visual motion channels have independent binocular-rivalry stages.

We have previously reported a transparent motion after-effect indicating that the human visual system comprises separate slow and fast motion channels. Here, we report that the presentation of a fast motion in one eye and a slow motion in the other eye does not result in binocular rivalry but in a clear percept of transparent motion. We call this new visual phenomenon 'dichoptic motion transparency' (DMT). So far only the DMT phenomenon and the two motion after-effects (the 'classical' motion after-effect, seen after motion adaptation on a static test pattern, and the dynamic motion after-effect, seen on a dynamic-noise test pattern) appear to isolate the channels completely. The speed ranges of the slow and fast channels overlap strongly and are observer dependent. A model is presented that links after-effect durations of an observer to the probability of rivalry or DMT as a function of dichoptic velocity combinations. Model results support the assumption of two highly independent channels showing only within-channel rivalry, and no rivalry or after-effect interactions between the channels. The finding of two independent motion vision channels, each with a separate rivalry stage and a private line to conscious perception, might be helpful in visualizing or analysing pathways to consciousness.

Humans↗
PubMed2000

Spatial structure, contrast polarity and motion integration.

It has been shown that in the initial stages of motion processing, the ON and OFF pathways stay more or less separated. There is evidence that this distinction between motion signals from opposite contrast polarities remains at least partly intact in the integration stage of local motion information. At the same time, interactions between the two systems are also apparent. Here we constructed stimuli that contained a constant number of moving checks. The checks were either assigned only one contrast polarity, or contrast polarity was distributed across the checks either randomly or evenly. We investigated how the spatial configuration of the moving stimulus affected direction discrimination thresholds for the different polarity distributions. Our results provide new evidence for contrast-sign-specific integration of local motion signals within areas of limited size, and inhibitory interactions between these separate ON and OFF motion sensor pools.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed1999

Integration and segregation of local motion signals: the role of contrast polarity.

In the initial stages of visual processing in primates, more or less separated ON and OFF pathways have been shown to exist. There is ample evidence, that this separation includes the initial stages of motion processing. In the present study, experiments were conducted to investigate whether this ON versus OFF distinction persists into the integration stage of local motion information. We constructed stimuli that consisted of clusters of checks with equal contrast polarity, which could be varied in size, and compared them to stimuli with a random polarity distribution. We found that the ON versus OFF distinction remains partly intact, while interactions between the two systems are also apparent. These interactions prove to be highly correlated with the spatial structure of the stimulus. We propose a mechanism of contrast-sign specific integration of local motion signals, after which these separate ON and OFF pools engage in mutually inhibitory interactions.

Computer Graphics↗
PubMed1999

Integration after adaptation to transparent motion: static and dynamic test patterns result in different aftereffect directions.

One of the many interesting questions in motion aftereffect (MAE) research is concerned with the location(s) along the pathway of visual processing at which certain perceptual manifestations of this illusory motion originate. One such manifestation is the unidirectionality of the MAE after adaptation to moving plaids or transparent motion. This unidirectionality has led to the suggestion that the origin of this MAE might be a single source (gain control) located at, or beyond areas that are believed to be responsible for the integration of motion signals. In this report we present evidence against this suggestion using a simple experiment. For the same adaptation pattern, which consisted of two orthogonally moving transparent patterns with different speeds, we show that the direction of the resulting unidirectional MAE depends on the nature of the test stimulus. We used two kinds of test patterns: static and dynamic. For exactly the same adaptation conditions, the difference in MAE direction between testing with static and dynamic patterns can be as large as 50 degrees. This finding suggests that this MAE is not just a perceptual manifestation of a passive recovery of adapted motion sensors but an active integrative process using the output of different gain controls. A process which takes place after adaptation. These findings are in line with the idea that there are several sites of adaptation along the pathway of visual motion processing and that the nature of the test pattern determines the fate of our perceptual experience of the MAE.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed1999

Motion aftereffect of combined first-order and second-order motion.

When, after prolonged viewing of a moving stimulus, a stationary (test) pattern is presented to an observer, this results in an illusory movement in the direction opposite to the adapting motion. Typically, this motion aftereffect (MAE) does not occur after adaptation to a second-order motion stimulus (i.e. an equiluminous stimulus where the movement is defined by a contrast or texture border, not by a luminance border). However, a MAE of second-order motion is perceived when, instead of a static test pattern, a dynamic test pattern is used. Here, we investigate whether a second-order motion stimulus does affect the MAE on a static test pattern (sMAE), when second-order motion is presented in combination with first-order motion during adaptation. The results show that this is indeed the case. Although the second-order motion stimulus is too weak to produce a convincing sMAE on its own, its influence on the sMAE is of equal strength to that of the first-order motion component, when they are adapted to simultaneously. The results suggest that the perceptual appearance of the sMAE originates from the site where first-order and second-order motion are integrated.

Contrast Sensitivity↗
PubMed1998

Local and global factors affecting the coherent motion of gratings presented in multiple apertures.

Using stimuli composed of two independent gratings viewed through multiple apertures, we investigate a number of parameters affecting the integration of locally ambiguous motions into globally coherent motion. In four experiments, we varied local factors (grating spatial frequency, speed, contrast, duty cycle, orientation) and global factors (degree of similarity and common fate between the gratings, and symmetry in the configuration of the grating pattern) and examined their effects on global motion coherence. Our results, confirming accounts offered by previous investigators, indicate that local competition between motion signals generated by contours (ambiguous) and their line terminations (unambiguous) is important in determining global motion coherence in multiple-aperture stimuli. Our results also indicate that global factors can affect perceived coherence independently of local motion signals, suggesting the involvement of higher-level motion areas and a role for non-motion processes such as those involved in pattern and form perception. Comparing motion coherence with other two-dimensional (2-D) stimuli (plaids) shows that 2-D multiple-aperture stimuli are not analogous and that coherence models derived from plaid stimuli do not account for the data.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

Aftereffect of high-speed motion.

A visual illusion known as the motion aftereffect is considered to be the perceptual manifestation of motion sensors that are recovering from adaptation. This aftereffect can be obtained for a specific range of adaptation speeds with its magnitude generally peaking for speeds around 3 deg s-1. The classic motion aftereffect is usually measured with a static test pattern. Here, we measured the magnitude of the motion aftereffect for a large range of velocities covering also higher speeds, using both static and dynamic test patterns. The results suggest that at least two (sub)populations of motion-sensitive neurons underlie these motion aftereffects. One population shows itself under static test conditions and is dominant for low adaptation speeds, and the other is prevalent under dynamic test conditions after adaptation to high speeds. The dynamic motion aftereffect can be perceived for adaptation speeds up to three times as fast as the static motion aftereffect. We tested predictions that follow from the hypothesised division in neuronal substrates. We found that for exactly the same adaptation conditions (oppositely directed transparent motion with different speeds), the aftereffect direction differs by 180 degrees depending on the test pattern. The motion aftereffect is opposite to the pattern moving at low speed when the test pattern is static, and opposite to the high-speed pattern for a dynamic test pattern. The determining factor is the combination of adaptation speed and type of test pattern.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed1995

The perceived direction of textured gratings and their motion aftereffects.

The stimuli in these experiments are square-wave luminance gratings with an array of small random dots covering the high-luminance regions. Owing to the texture, the direction of these gratings, when seen through a circular aperture, is disambiguated because the visual system is provided with an unambiguous motion energy. Thus, the direction of textured gratings can be varied independently of grating orientation. When subjects are required to judge the direction of textured gratings moving obliquely relative to their orientation, they can do so accurately (experiment 1). This is of interest because most studies of one-dimensional motion perception have involved (textureless) luminance-defined since-wave or square-wave gratings, and the perceived direction of these gratings is constrained by the aperture problem to be orthogonal to their orientation. Thus, direction and orientation have often been confounded. Interestingly, when subjects are required to judge the direction of an obliquely moving textured grating during a period of adaptation and then the direction of the motion aftereffect (MAE) immediately following adaptation (experiments 2 and 3), these directions are not directly opposite each other. MAE directions were always more orthogonal to the orientation of the adapting grating than the corresponding direction judgments during adaptation (by as much as 25 degrees). These results are not readily explained by conventional MAE models and possible accounts are considered.

Adaptation, Ocular↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Monocular mechanisms determine plaid motion coherence.

Although the neural location of the plaid motion coherence process is not precisely known, the middle temporal (MT) cortical area has been proposed as a likely candidate. This claim rests largely on the neurophysiological findings showing that in response to plaid stimuli, a subgroup of cells in area MT responds to the pattern direction, whereas cells in area V1 respond only to the directions of the component gratings. In Experiment 1, we report that the coherent motion of a plaid pattern can be completely abolished following adaptation to a grating which moves in the plaid direction and has the same spatial period as the plaid features (the so-called "blobs"). Interestingly, we find this phenomenon is monocular: monocular adaptation destroys plaid coherence in the exposed eye but leaves it unaffected in the other eye. Experiment 2 demonstrates that adaptation to a purely binocular (dichoptic) grating does not affect perceived plaid coherence. These data suggest several conclusions: (1) that the mechanism determining plaid coherence responds to the motion of plaid features, (2) that the coherence mechanism is monocular, and thus (3), that it is probably located at a relatively low level in the visual system and peripherally to the binocular mechanisms commonly presumed to underlie two-dimensional (2-D) motion perception. Experiment 3 examines the spatial tuning of the monocular coherence mechanism and our results suggest it is broadly tuned with a preference for lower spatial frequencies. In Experiment 4, we examine whether perceived plaid direction is determined by the motion of the grating components or the features. Our data strongly support a feature-based model.

Adaptation, Ocular↗