Biomedical subjects

Walter L Makous

Publications and source records attributed to Walter L Makous.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

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↗