PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15498481

Object motion: a world view.

Abstract

Moving objects are detected by virtue of their shifting image on the retina. But to know how objects are moving in the world, we must take into account the rotation of our eyes, as well as the rotation of our head. A recent paper describes neurons that carry out this computation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David Bradley. 2004-10-26. Object motion: a world view.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.09.072

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Perceptual grouping induces non-retinotopic feature attribution in human vision.

The human visual system computes features of moving objects with high precision despite the fact that these features can change or blend into each other in the retinotopic image. Very little is known about how the human brain accomplishes this complex feat. Using a Ternus-Pikler display, introduced by Gestalt psychologists about a century ago, we show that human observers can perceive features of moving objects at locations these features are not present. More importantly, our results indicate that these non-retinotopic feature attributions are not errors caused by the limitations of the perceptual system but follow rules of perceptual grouping. From a computational perspective, our data imply sophisticated real-time transformations of retinotopic relations in the visual cortex. Our results suggest that the human motion and form systems interact with each other to remap the retinotopic projection of the physical space in order to maintain the identity of moving objects in the perceptual space.

Eye Movements↗

Implications of interrupted eye-head gaze shifts for resettable integrator reset.

The neural circuit responsible for saccadic eye movements is generally thought to resemble a closed loop controller. Several models of the saccadic system assume that the feedback signal of such a controller is an efference copy of "eye displacement", a neural estimate of the distance already travelled by the eyes, provided by the so-called "resettable integrator" (RI). The speed, with which the RI is reset, is thought to be fast or instantaneous by some authors and gradual by others. To examine this issue, psychophysicists have taken advantage of the target-distractor paradigm. Subjects engaged in it, are asked to look to only one of two stimuli (the "target") and not to a distractor presented in the diametrically opposite location and they often generate movement sequences in which a gaze shift towards the "distractor" is followed by a second gaze shift to the "target". The fact that the second movement is not systematically erroneous even when very short time intervals (about 5 ms) separate it from the first movement has been used to question the verisimilitude of gradual RI reset. To explore this matter we used a saccade-generating network that relies on a RI coupled to a head controller and a model of the rotational vestibulo-ocular reflex. An analysis of the activation functions of model units provides disproof by counterexample: "targets" can be accurately acquired even when the RI of the saccadic burst generator is not reset at all after the end of the first, interrupted eye-head gaze shift to the distractor and prior to the second, complete eye-head gaze shift to the "target".

Eye Movements↗

The temporal and spatial limits of compensation for fixational eye movements.

High-fidelity eye tracking is combined with a perceptual grouping task to provide insight into the likely mechanisms underlying the compensation of retinal image motion caused by movement of the eyes. The experiments describe the covert detection of minute temporal and spatial offsets incorporated into a test stimulus. Analysis of eye motion on individual trials indicates that the temporal offset sensitivity is actually due to motion of the eye inducing artificial spatial offsets in the briefly presented stimuli. The results have strong implications for two popular models of compensation for fixational eye movements, namely efference copy and image-based models. If an efference copy model is assumed, the results place constraints on the spatial accuracy and source of compensation. If an image-based model is assumed then limitations are placed on the integration time window over which motion estimates are calculated.

Eye Movements↗