Biomedical subjects

Nicholas E Scott-Samuel

Publications and source records attributed to Nicholas E Scott-Samuel.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Luminosity--a perceptual "feature" of light-emitting objects?

Light-emitting objects are perceived as qualitatively different from light-reflecting objects, and the two categories elicit different cortical activity. However, it is unclear whether object luminosity is treated as an independent visual feature, comparable to orientation, motion or colour. Visual search tasks revealed that light-emitting targets led to efficient search when presented with light-reflecting distractors of similar luminance, but this efficiency was induced by the presence of luminance gradients producing the percept of luminosity rather than by luminosity itself. This implies that luminance gradients (not object luminosity) are encoded as features, questioning the existence of specific sensory mechanisms to detect light-emitting objects.

Adaptation, Ocular↗

PubMed2005

Idiosyncratic initiation of saccadic face exploration in humans.

Visual processing and subsequent action are limited by the effectiveness of eye movement control: where the eyes fixate determines what part of the visual environment is seen in detail. Visual exploration consists of stereotypical sequences of saccadic eye movements which are known to depend upon both external factors, such as visual stimulus features, and internal cognition-related factors, such as attention and memory. However, how these two factors are balanced is unknown. One determinant might be the familiarity or ecological importance of the visual stimulus being explored. Recordings of saccades for human face stimuli revealed that their exploration was subject to strong individual biases for the initial saccade direction: subjects tended to look first to one particular side. We attribute this to internal factors. In contrast, exploration of landscapes, fractals or inverted faces showed no significant direction bias for initial saccades, suggesting more externally driven exploration patterns. Thus the balance between external and internal factors in scene exploration depends on stimulus type. An analysis of saccade latencies suggested that this individual preference for first saccade direction during face exploration leads to higher effectiveness through automation. The findings have implications for the understanding of both normal and abnormal eye movements.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

Opponent-motion mechanisms are self-normalizing.

In the ultimate stage of the Adelson-Bergen motion energy model [Adelson, E. H., & Bergen, J. (1985). Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 2, 284-299], motion is derived from the difference between directionally opponent energies E(L) and E(R). However, Georgeson and Scott-Samuel [Georgeson, M. A., & Scott-Samuel, N. E. (1999). Motion contrast: A new metric for direction discrimination. Vision Research, 39, 4393-4402] demonstrated that motion contrast-a metric that normalizes opponent motion energy (E(L)-E(R)) by flicker energy (E(L)+E(R))-is a better descriptor of human direction discrimination. In a previous study [Rainville, S. J. M., Makous, W. L., & Scott-Samuel, N. E. (2002). The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization. Vision Research, 42, 1727-1738], we used a lateral masking paradigm to show that opponent-motion normalization is selective for flicker position, orientation, and spatial-frequency. In the present study, we used a superposition masking paradigm and compared results to lateral masking data, as the two masking types activate local and remote normalization mechanisms differentially. Although selectivity for flicker orientation and spatial frequency varied across observers, bandwidths were similar across lateral and superimposed masking conditions. Additional experiments demonstrated that normalization signals are pooled over a spatial region whose aspect ratio and size are consistent with those of local motion detectors. Together, results show no evidence of remote normalization signals predicted by broadband inhibitory models [(e.g.) Heeger, D. J. (1992). Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex. Visual Neuroscience, 9, 181-197; Foley, J. M. (1994). Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: Masking experiments require a new model. Journal of the Optical Society of America A-Optics and Image Science, 11, 1710-1719] but support a local normalization process whose spatial properties are inherited from low-level motion detectors.

Flicker Fusion↗

PubMed2002

The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization.

The final stage of the Adelson-Bergen model [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2 (1985) 284] computes net motion as the difference between directionally opposite energies E(L) and E(R). However, Georgeson and Scott-Samuel [Vis. Res. 39 (1999) 4393] found that human direction discrimination is better described by motion contrast (C(m))--a metric where opponent energy (E(L)-E(R)) is divided by flicker energy (E(L)+E(R)). In the present paper, we used a lateral masking paradigm to investigate the spatial properties of flicker energy involved in the normalization of opponent energy. Observers discriminated between left and right motion while viewing a checkerboard in which half of the checks contained a drifting sinusoid and the other half contained flicker (i.e. a counterphasing sinusoid). The relative luminance contrasts of flicker and motion checks determined the checkerboard's overall motion contrast C(m). We obtained selectivity functions for opponent-motion normalization by measuring C(m) thresholds whilst varying the orientation, spatial frequency, or size of flicker checks. In all conditions, performance (percent correct) decayed lawfully as we decreased motion contrast, validating the C(m) metric for our stimuli. Thresholds decreased with check size and also improved as we increased either the orientation or spatial-frequency difference between motion and flicker checks. Our data are inconsistent with Heeger-type normalization models [Vis. Neurosci. 9 (1992) 181] in which excitatory inputs are normalized by a non-selective pooling of inhibitory inputs, but data are consistent with the implicit assumption in Georgeson and Scott-Samuel's model that flicker normalization is localized in orientation, scale, and space. However, our lateral masking paradigm leaves open the possibility that the spatial properties of flicker normalization would be different if opponent and flicker energies spatially overlapped. Further characterization of motion contrast will require models of the spatial, temporal, and joint space-time properties of mechanisms mediating opponent-motion and flicker normalization.

Contrast Sensitivity↗