Perceptual consequences of interocular differences in the duration of temporal integration

Temporal differences in visual information processing between the eyes can cause dramatic misperceptions of motion and depth. Processing delays between the eyes cause the Pulfrich effect: oscillating targets in the frontal plane are misperceived as moving along near-elliptical motion trajectories in depth (Pulfrich, 1922). Here, we explain a previously reported but poorly understood variant: the anomalous Pulfrich effect. When this variant is perceived, the illusory motion trajectory appears oriented left- or right-side back in depth, rather than aligned with the true direction of motion. Our data indicate that this perceived misalignment is due to interocular differences in neural temporal integration periods, as opposed to interocular differences in delay. For oscillating motion, differences in the duration of temporal integration dampen the effective motion amplitude in one eye relative to the other. In a dynamic analog of the Geometric effect in stereo-surface-orientation perception (Ogle, 1950), the different motion amplitudes cause the perceived misorientation of the motion trajectories. Forced-choice psychophysical experiments, conducted with both different spatial frequencies and different onscreen motion damping in the two eyes show that the perceived misorientation in depth is associated with the eye having greater motion damping. A target-tracking experiment provided more direct evidence that the anomalous Pulfrich effect is caused by interocular differences in temporal integration and delay. These findings highlight the computational hurdles posed to the visual system by temporal differences in sensory processing. Future work will explore how the visual system overcomes these challenges to achieve accurate perception.

[1]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Contact lenses, the reverse Pulfrich effect, and anti-Pulfrich monovision corrections , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[2]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Target tracking reveals the time course of visual processing with millisecond-scale precision , 2020, bioRxiv.

[3]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Image-Computable Ideal Observers for Tasks with Natural Stimuli. , 2020, Annual review of vision science.

[4]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Natural scene statistics predict how humans pool information across space in surface tilt estimation , 2019, bioRxiv.

[5]  Seung Hyun Min,et al.  Interocular Differences in Spatial Frequency Influence the Pulfrich Effect , 2020, Vision.

[6]  Benjamin M. Chin,et al.  Predicting the Partition of Behavioral Variability in Speed Perception with Naturalistic Stimuli , 2019, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Monovision and the Misperception of Motion , 2019, Current Biology.

[8]  Alexander C. Huk,et al.  Lawful tracking of visual motion in humans, macaques, and marmosets in a naturalistic, continuous, and untrained behavioral context , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Johannes Burge,et al.  The lawful imprecision of human surface tilt estimation in natural scenes , 2017, bioRxiv.

[10]  R. Hess,et al.  Interocular contrast difference drives illusory 3D percept , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[11]  Kathryn Bonnen,et al.  Dynamic mechanisms of visually guided 3D motion tracking. , 2017, Journal of neurophysiology.

[12]  Julian Leyland,et al.  The Southampton-York Natural Scenes (SYNS) dataset: Statistics of surface attitude , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[13]  Brian C. McCann,et al.  Estimating 3D tilt from local image cues in natural scenes , 2016, Journal of vision.

[14]  Stephen G. Lisberger,et al.  Signal, Noise, and Variation in Neural and Sensory-Motor Latency , 2016, Neuron.

[15]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Optimal speed estimation in natural image movies predicts human performance , 2015, Nature Communications.

[16]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Continuous psychophysics: Target-tracking to measure visual sensitivity. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[17]  W. Geisler,et al.  Optimal disparity estimation in natural stereo images. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[18]  Lawrence K. Cormack,et al.  Reflexive and voluntary control of smooth eye movements , 2013, Electronic Imaging.

[19]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Optimal defocus estimates from individual images for autofocusing a digital camera , 2012, Electronic Imaging.

[20]  Johannes Burge,et al.  Optimal defocus estimation in individual natural images , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Geraint Rees,et al.  Knowing with Which Eye We See: Utrocular Discrimination and Eye-Specific Signals in Human Visual Cortex , 2010, PloS one.

[22]  W. Bialek,et al.  A sensory source for motor variation , 2005, Nature.

[23]  Bruce G Cumming,et al.  Effect of interocular delay on disparity-selective v1 neurons: relationship to stereoacuity and the pulfrich effect. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  J. Movshon,et al.  Adaptive Temporal Integration of Motion in Direction-Selective Neurons in Macaque Visual Cortex , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[25]  Robert A. Frazor,et al.  Visual cortex neurons of monkeys and cats: temporal dynamics of the spatial frequency response function. , 2004, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  Dale Purves,et al.  Image/source statistics of surfaces in natural scenes , 2003, Network.

[27]  A. Vassilev,et al.  On the delay in processing high spatial frequency visual information: reaction time and VEP latency study of the effect of local intensity of stimulation , 2002, Vision Research.

[28]  James A. Crowell,et al.  Horizontal and vertical disparity, eye position, and stereoscopic slant perception , 1999, Vision Research.

[29]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Retinal adaptation of visual processing time delays , 1993, Vision Research.

[30]  B. Pesta,et al.  A generalized visual latency explanation of the Pulfrich phenomenon , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  D. Levi,et al.  Suprathreshold spatial frequency detection and binocular interaction in strabismic and anisometropic amblyopia. , 1979, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[32]  S. Anstis,et al.  Visual delay as a function of luminance. , 1969, The American journal of psychology.

[33]  G. S. Harker,et al.  Some observations and measurements of the Pulfrich phenomenon , 1967 .

[34]  R. Weale Theory of the Pulfrich effect. , 1954, Ophthalmologica. Journal international d'ophtalmologie. International journal of ophthalmology. Zeitschrift fur Augenheilkunde.

[35]  A. Lit The magnitude of the Pulfrich stereophenomenon as a function of binocular differences of intensity at various levels of illumination. , 1949, The American journal of psychology.

[36]  C. Pulfrich Die Stereoskopie im Dienste der isochromen und heterochromen Photometrie , 2005, Naturwissenschaften.

[37]  D. Trincker Hell-Dunkel-Anpassung und räumliches Sehen , 2004, Pflüger's Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere.

[38]  Martin S. Banks,et al.  Extra-retinal and perspective cues cause the small range of the induced effect , 1998, Vision Research.

[39]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[40]  Randolph Blake,et al.  On utrocular discrimination , 1979 .

[41]  S. Freguia Researches in Binocular Vision. , 1950 .