Non-Fourier motion analysis.

It has been realized for some time that the visual system performs at least two general sorts of motion processing. First-order motion processing applies some variant of standard motion analysis (i.e. spatiotemporal Fourier energy analysis) directly to stimulus luminance, whereas second-order motion processing applies standard motion analysis to one or another grossly non-linear transformation of stimulus luminance. We have developed a method for disentangling the different sorts of mechanisms that may operate in human vision to detect second-order motion. This method hinges on an empirical condition called transition invariance that may or may not be satisfied by a family psi of textures. Any failure of this condition indicates that more than one mechanism is involved in detecting the motion of stimuli composed of the textures in psi. We have shown that the family of sinusoidal gratings oriented orthogonally to the direction of motion and varying in contrast and spatial frequency is transition invariant. We modelled the results in terms of a single-channel motion computation. We have new results indicating that a specific class of textures differing in texture element density and texture element contrast decisively fails the test of transition invariance. These findings suggest that in addition to the single second-order motion channel required by our earlier results there exists at least one other second-order motion channel. We argue that the preprocessing transformation used by this channel is a pointwise non-linearity that maps stimulus contrasts of absolute value less than some relatively high threshold tau onto 0, but increases with magnitude of c-tau for contrasts. c of absolute value greater than tau.

[1]  Marc Green,et al.  What determines correspondence strength in apparent motion? , 1986, Vision Research.

[2]  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.

[3]  A Pantle,et al.  A multistable movement display: evidence for two separate motion systems in human vision. , 1976, Science.

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

[5]  G. Sperling,et al.  Texture quilts: Basic tools for studying motion-from-texture , 1991 .

[6]  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.

[7]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Interattribute apparent motion , 1989, Vision Research.

[8]  J. J. Koenderink,et al.  Illusory motion in visual displays , 1984, Vision Research.

[9]  Mary M. Conte,et al.  Motion mechanisms have only limited access to form information , 1990, Vision Research.

[10]  V. Ramachandran,et al.  Apparent movement with subjective contours. , 1973, Vision research.

[11]  G. Sperling,et al.  Drift-balanced random stimuli: a general basis for studying non-Fourier motion perception. , 1988, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[12]  A. Pantle,et al.  On the mechanism that encodes the movement of contrast variations: Velocity discrimination , 1989, Vision Research.

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

[14]  G. Sperling,et al.  The dimensionality of texture-defined motion: a single channel theory , 1993, Vision Research.

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

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

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

[18]  G. Sperling.  Movement perception in computer-driven visual displays , 1976 .