Correlation versus gradient type motion detectors: the pros and cons

Visual motion contains a wealth of information about self-motion as well as the three-dimensional structure of the environment. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for any organism with eyes. However, visual motion information is not explicitly represented at the photoreceptor level, but rather has to be computed by the nervous system from the changing retinal images as one of the first processing steps. Two prominent models have been proposed to account for this neural computation: the Reichardt detector and the gradient detector. While the Reichardt detector correlates the luminance levels derived from two adjacent image points, the gradient detector provides an estimate of the local retinal image velocity by dividing the spatial and the temporal luminance gradient. As a consequence of their different internal processing structure, both the models differ in a number of functional aspects such as their dependence on the spatial-pattern structure as well as their sensitivity to photon noise. These different properties lead to the proposal that an ideal motion detector should be of Reichardt type at low luminance levels, but of gradient type at high luminance levels. However, experiments on the fly visual systems provided unambiguous evidence in favour of the Reichardt detector under all luminance conditions. Does this mean that the fly nervous system uses suboptimal computations, or is there a functional aspect missing in the optimality criterion? In the following, I will argue in favour of the latter, showing that Reichardt detectors have an automatic gain control allowing them to dynamically adjust their input–output relationships to the statistical range of velocities presented, while gradient detectors do not have this property. As a consequence, Reichardt detectors, but not gradient detectors, always provide a maximum amount of information about stimulus velocity over a large range of velocities. This important property might explain why Reichardt type of computations have been demonstrated to underlie the extraction of motion information in the fly visual system under all luminance levels.

[1]  Giulio Fermi,et al.  Optomotorische Reaktionen der Fliege Musca Domestica , 1963, Kybernetik.

[2]  Adrienne L. Fairhall,et al.  Efficiency and ambiguity in an adaptive neural code , 2001, Nature.

[3]  H. Sompolinsky,et al.  Adaptation without parameter change: Dynamic gain control in motion detection , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  W. Reichardt,et al.  Dynamic response properties of movement detectors: Theoretical analysis and electrophysiological investigation in the visual system of the fly , 1987, Biological Cybernetics.

[5]  J. Limb,et al.  Estimating the Velocity of Moving Images in Television Signals , 1975 .

[6]  Alexander Borst,et al.  Noise, Not Stimulus Entropy, Determines Neural Information Rate , 2004, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[7]  Lei Shi,et al.  Propagation of photon noise and information transfer in visual motion detection , 2006, Journal of Computational Neuroscience.

[8]  Karl Geokg Götz,et al.  Optomotorische Untersuchung des visuellen systems einiger Augenmutanten der Fruchtfliege Drosophila , 1964, Kybernetik.

[9]  A. Borst,et al.  Detecting visual motion: theory and models. , 1993, Reviews of oculomotor research.

[10]  J. V. van Hateren,et al.  Function and Coding in the Blowfly H1 Neuron during Naturalistic Optic Flow , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[12]  C. Koch,et al.  The analysis of visual motion: from computational theory to neuronal mechanisms. , 1986, Annual review of neuroscience.

[13]  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.

[14]  Werner Reichardt,et al.  Evaluation of optical motion information by movement detectors , 1987, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[15]  W. Bialek,et al.  Statistical mechanics and visual signal processing , 1994, cond-mat/9401072.

[16]  Claude L. Fennema,et al.  Velocity determination in scenes containing several moving objects , 1979 .

[17]  Alexander Borst,et al.  Principles of visual motion detection , 1989, Trends in Neurosciences.

[18]  A. Borst,et al.  Neural networks in the cockpit of the fly , 2002, Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

[19]  E. Buchner Elementary movement detectors in an insect visual system , 1976, Biological Cybernetics.

[20]  M. Srinivasan Generalized gradient schemes for the measurement of two-dimensional image motion , 1990, Biological Cybernetics.

[21]  M. Dickinson,et al.  Wing rotation and the aerodynamic basis of insect flight. , 1999, Science.

[22]  G D Lewen,et al.  Reproducibility and Variability in Neural Spike Trains , 1997, Science.

[23]  A. Borst,et al.  Dendritic integration and its role in computing image velocity. , 1998, Science.

[24]  A Borst,et al.  Fly motion vision is based on Reichardt detectors regardless of the signal-to-noise ratio. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  William Bialek,et al.  Adaptive Rescaling Maximizes Information Transmission , 2000, Neuron.

[26]  B. Hassenstein,et al.  Systemtheoretische Analyse der Zeit-, Reihenfolgen- und Vorzeichenauswertung bei der Bewegungsperzeption des Rüsselkäfers Chlorophanus , 1956 .

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