Motion detection is limited by element density not spatial frequency

Two-frame random-element kinematograms were used to study the matching algorithm employed by the visual system to keep track of moving elements. Previous data have shown that the maximum spatial displacement detectable (dmax) for random-dot kinematogram stimuli increases both with increasing dot size and with decreasing centre frequency for spatially band-pass kinematograms. Both of these findings could be explained by either (i) a matching algorithm sensitive to the number of false targets in the display (informational limit) or (ii) spatial-frequency tuned sensors hardwired for detecting displacements of a constant proportion of their preferred frequency (phase-based limit). The present experiment was designed to differentiate between these alternative explanations. The stimuli were band-pass filtered (difference-of-Gaussian) random-dot patterns. The combination of six dot densities and three filter sizes produced 18 experimental conditions and allowed independent control of the spectral content and filtered-element density of the stimuli. When the dot density was high, dmax was larger for the coarse-filtered stimuli, as predicted by both theories. There was also a critical dot density for each filter size, above which dmax was constant but below which dmax rose sharply. This critical density was higher for fine-filtered stimuli such that at the lowest dot density of 0.025%, dmax was constant for all filter sizes. In support of the informational limit model, dmax was found to be directly proportional to the two-dimensional spacing of filtered elements. In contrast, dmax varied from 0.6 to 8.5 cycles of the stimulus peak frequency, suggesting that a phase-based model of motion detection cannot account for the results.

[1]  C. Baker,et al.  Different parameters control motion perception above and below a critical density , 1993, Vision Research.

[2]  A. Watson,et al.  The optimal motion stimulus , 1995, Vision Research.

[3]  Mark A. Georgeson,et al.  Monocular motion sensing, binocular motion perception , 1989, Vision Research.

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

[5]  O J Braddick,et al.  Low-level and high-level processes in apparent motion. , 1980, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[6]  David C. Burr,et al.  Receptive field properties of human motion detector units inferred from spatial frequency masking , 1989, Vision Research.

[7]  W. Reichardt,et al.  Autocorrelation, a principle for the evaluation of sensory information by the central nervous system , 1961 .

[8]  O. Braddick The masking of apparent motion in random-dot patterns. , 1973, Vision research.

[9]  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.

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

[11]  B. Julesz,et al.  Cooperative phenomena in apparent movement perception of random-dot cinematograms , 1984, Vision Research.

[12]  Walter F. Bischof,et al.  On the half-cycle displacement limit of sampled directional motion , 1991, Vision Research.

[13]  A. Derrington,et al.  Separate detectors for simple and complex grating patterns? , 1985, Vision Research.

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

[15]  J. Lappin,et al.  The detection of coherence in moving random-dot patterns , 1976, Vision Research.

[16]  Curtis L. Baker,et al.  Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: Evidence for two mechanisms , 1993, Vision Research.

[17]  M. Dawson,et al.  The how and why of what went where in apparent motion: modeling solutions to the motion correspondence problem. , 1991, Psychological review.

[18]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Masking of motion by broadband and filtered directional noise , 1979 .

[19]  P. O. Bishop,et al.  Spatial vision. , 1971, Annual review of psychology.

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

[21]  G A Orban,et al.  Discrimination of opposite directions measured with stroboscopically illuminated random-dot patterns. , 1989, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

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

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

[24]  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.

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

[26]  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.

[27]  J. Pokorny Foundations of Cyclopean Perception , 1972 .

[28]  M. Fahle,et al.  Effects of pattern element density upon displacement limits for motion detection in random binary luminance patterns , 1992, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  C. Baker,et al.  Spatial receptive-field properties of direction-selective neurons in cat striate cortex. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[30]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Psychophysical isolation of movement sensitivity by removal of familiar position cues , 1981, Vision Research.

[31]  David R. Badcock,et al.  Analysis of the motion of 2-dimensional patterns: Evidence for a second-order process , 1992, Vision Research.

[32]  C. Baker,et al.  The basis of area and dot number effects in random dot motion perception , 1982, Vision Research.

[33]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Motion: the long and short of it. , 1989, Spatial vision.

[34]  S. Anstis The perception of apparent movement. , 1980, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[35]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Perception of Motion in Equiluminous Kinematograms , 1985, Perception.

[36]  D Marr,et al.  A computational theory of human stereo vision. , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[37]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  ISI produces reverse apparent motion , 1990, Vision Research.

[38]  C. Baker,et al.  Motion detection is dependent on spatial frequency not size , 1991, Vision Research.

[39]  S. Ullman,et al.  The interpretation of visual motion , 1977 .

[40]  M. J. Morgan,et al.  Spatial filtering precedes motion detection , 1992, Nature.

[41]  G. Sperling,et al.  Second-order motion perception: space/time separable mechanisms , 1989, [1989] Proceedings. Workshop on Visual Motion.

[42]  M. J. Keck,et al.  Influence of the spatial periodicity of moving gratings on motion response. , 1980, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.