On the half-cycle displacement limit of sampled directional motion

We employed filtered random-dot kinematograms to determine the maximum displacement (dmax) at which sampled directional motion was reliably detected. The images were produced using ideal band-pass filters that varied in lower cut-off frequency (f1), in bandwidth, and in range (alpha) of component orientations that were passed. Results showed that dmax, expressed in cycles of f1, increased with f1 and alpha, and decreased with bandwidth. In many conditions, dmax exceeded half a cycle of f1, a result that appears to contradict predictions from quadrature models of motion detection. However, an account that does not violate the half-cycle limit can be given on two assumptions. First, motion perception is mediated by a population of orientation and frequency-selective sensors that respond correctly to displacements up to half a cycle in the preferred direction. Second, the outputs from all sensors (notably including off-axis sensors) are linearly summated to yield perception of motion. A computer simulation based on these assumptions provided a remarkably close fit to the psychophysical data.

[1]  D Marr,et al.  Directional selectivity and its use in early visual processing , 1981, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[2]  O. Braddick,et al.  Direction discrimination for band-pass filtered random dot kinematograms , 1990, Vision Research.

[3]  C. Baker,et al.  Optimal displacement in apparent motion , 1989, Vision Research.

[4]  A Pantle,et al.  Discontinuity limits for the generation of visual motion aftereffects with sine- and square-wave gratings. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[5]  Andrew B. Watson,et al.  Window of visibility: a psychophysical theory of fidelity in time-sampled visual motion displays , 1986 .

[6]  O. Braddick,et al.  Masking of low frequency information in short-range apparent motion , 1990, Vision Research.

[7]  O. Braddick A short-range process in apparent motion. , 1974, Vision research.

[8]  V. Lollo,et al.  Perception of directional sampled motion in relation to displacement and spatial frequency: Evidence for a unitary motion system , 1990, Vision Research.

[9]  V. Lollo,et al.  Effects of adapting luminance and stimulus contrast on the temporal and spatial limits of short-range motion , 1990, Vision Research.

[10]  B Julesz,et al.  Cooperative and non-cooperative processes of apparent movement of random-dot cinematograms. , 1985, Spatial vision.

[11]  E H Adelson,et al.  Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[12]  David C. Burr,et al.  Smooth and sampled motion , 1986, Vision Research.

[13]  M J Morgan,et al.  Spatiotemporal Filtering and the Interpolation Effect in Apparent Motion , 1980, Perception.

[14]  E. Adelson,et al.  Phenomenal coherence of moving visual patterns , 1982, Nature.

[15]  Gary Finley,et al.  A high-speed point plotter for vision research , 1985, Vision Research.

[16]  M. M. Taylor,et al.  PEST: Efficient Estimates on Probability Functions , 1967 .

[17]  H. Wilson,et al.  Perceived direction of moving two-dimensional patterns , 1990, Vision Research.

[18]  B. Julesz,et al.  Displacement limits for spatial frequency filtered random-dot cinematograms in apparent motion , 1983, Vision Research.

[19]  A J Ahumada,et al.  Model of human visual-motion sensing. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[20]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Detection and discrimination of sinusoidal grating displacements. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[21]  J. van Santen,et al.  Elaborated Reichardt detectors. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.