PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12127106

The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization.

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stéphane J M Rainville, Nicholas E Scott-Samuel, Walter L Makous. 2002. The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(02)00108-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Shift in spatial scale in identifying crowded letters.

Crowding refers to the increased difficulty in identifying a letter flanked by other letters. The purpose of this study was to determine if the peak sensitivity of the human visual system shifts to a different spatial frequency when identifying crowded letters, compared with single letters. We measured contrast thresholds for identifying the middle target letters in trigrams, for a range of spatial frequencies, letter separations and letter sizes, at the fovea and 5 degrees eccentricity. Plots of contrast sensitivity vs. letter frequency exhibit spatial tuning, for all letter sizes and letter separations tested. The peak tuning frequency grows as the 0.6-0.7 power of the letter size, independent of letter separation. At the smallest letter separation, peak tuning frequency occurs at a frequency that is 0.17 octaves higher for flanked than for unflanked letters at the fovea, and 0.19 octaves at 5 degrees eccentricity. This finding suggests that the human visual system shifts its sensitivity toward a higher spatial-frequency channel when identifying letters in the presence of nearby letters. However, the size of the shift is insufficient to account for the large effect of crowding in the periphery.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

Developmental delay and magnocellular visual pathway function in very-low-birthweight preterm infants.

This study investigated the effect of very preterm birth (gestation < or =30wks) and very low birth weight (< or =1500g) on the development of magnocellular and parvocellular visual processing streams. Participants were preterm infants (n=55: 31 females, 24 males) born between 24 and 30 weeks'gestation (mean 27.4wks [SD 1.3]), weighing between 720 and 1470g (mean 1015g [SD 215]) and term infants (n=52: 27 females, 25 males) born between 38 and 42 weeks'gestation (mean 39.4wks [SD 0.9]), weighing between 2670 and 4405g (mean 3549g [SD 440]). Visual-evoked potentials to phase-reversing sine-wave gratings, varying in spatial frequency and contrast, were used to elicit magnocellular and parvocellular specific responses. Previous studies found that the N1 component reflects the parvocellular response, while P1 reflects the magnocellular response in adults and infants. Findings from the current study indicate significantly lower P1 amplitudes in preterm compared with term infants under most conditions. No difference was found for the amplitude of the N1 waveform. Results indicate that, for the age-range tested, preterm birth has little effect on the development of parvocellular function, while it appears to disrupt the development of magnocelluar function.

Contrast Sensitivity↗

Perceived direction of plaid motion is not predicted by component speeds.

It has been shown that the perceived direction of a plaid with components of unequal contrast is biased towards the direction of the higher-contrast component [Stone, L. S., Watson, A. B., & Mulligan, J. B. (1990). Effect of contrast on the perceived direction of a moving plaid. Vision Research 30, 1049-1067]. It was proposed that this effect is due to the influence of contrast on the perceived speed of the plaid components. This led to the conclusion that perceived plaid direction is computed by the intersection of constraints (IOC) of the perceived speed of the components rather than their physical speeds. We tested this proposal at a wider range of component speeds (2-16deg/s) than used previously, across which the effect of contrast on perceived speed is seen to reverse. We find that across this range, perceived plaid direction cannot be predicted either by a model which takes the IOC of physical or perceived component speed. Our results are consistent with an explanation of 2D motion perception proposed by [Bowns, L. (1996). Evidence for a feature tracking explanation of why Type II plaids move in the vector sum direction at short durations. Vision Research, 36, 3685-3694.] in which the motion of the zero-crossing edges of the features in the stimulus contribute to the perceived direction of motion.

Contrast Sensitivity↗