Literature DB >> 19336240

What a difference a parameter makes: a psychophysical comparison of random dot motion algorithms.

Praveen K Pilly1, Aaron R Seitz.   

Abstract

Random dot motion (RDM) displays have emerged as one of the standard stimulus types employed in psychophysical and physiological studies of motion processing. RDMs are convenient because it is straightforward to manipulate the relative motion energy for a given motion direction in addition to stimulus parameters such as the speed, contrast, duration, density, aperture, etc. However, as widely as RDMs are employed so do they vary in their details of implementation. As a result, it is often difficult to make direct comparisons across studies employing different RDM algorithms and parameters. Here, we systematically measure the ability of human subjects to estimate motion direction for four commonly used RDM algorithms under a range of parameters in order to understand how these different algorithms compare in their perceptibility. We find that parametric and algorithmic differences can produce dramatically different performances. These effects, while surprising, can be understood in relationship to pertinent neurophysiological data regarding spatiotemporal displacement tuning properties of cells in area MT and how the tuning function changes with stimulus contrast and retinal eccentricity. These data help give a baseline by which different RDM algorithms can be compared, demonstrate a need for clearly reporting RDM details in the methods of papers, and also pose new constraints and challenges to models of motion direction processing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19336240      PMCID: PMC2789308          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.03.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  51 in total

1.  Neural dynamics of motion integration and segmentation within and across apertures.

Authors:  S Grossberg; E Mingolla; L Viswanathan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Psychophysics: Is subliminal learning really passive?

Authors:  Aaron R Seitz; Takeo Watanabe
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-03-06       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Response of neurons in the lateral intraparietal area during a combined visual discrimination reaction time task.

Authors:  Jamie D Roitman; Michael N Shadlen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Middle temporal visual area microstimulation influences veridical judgments of motion direction.

Authors:  M James Nichols; William T Newsome
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 5.  Visual mechanisms of motion analysis and motion perception.

Authors:  Andrew M Derrington; Harriet A Allen; Louise S Delicato
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 24.137

6.  Perceptual consequences of centre-surround antagonism in visual motion processing.

Authors:  Duje Tadin; Joseph S Lappin; Lee A Gilroy; Randolph Blake
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2003-07-17       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Greater plasticity in lower-level than higher-level visual motion processing in a passive perceptual learning task.

Authors:  Takeo Watanabe; José E Náñez; Shinichi Koyama; Ikuko Mukai; Jacqueline Liederman; Yuka Sasaki
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 24.884

8.  The dependence of perceived speed upon signal intensity.

Authors:  Christopher P Benton; William Curran
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-11-29       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey.

Authors:  M N Shadlen; W T Newsome
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Interactions between contrast and spatial displacement in visual motion processing.

Authors:  Aaron R Seitz; Praveen K Pilly; Christopher C Pack
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2008-10-14       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  40 in total

Review 1.  Accounting for speed-accuracy tradeoff in perceptual learning.

Authors:  Charles C Liu; Takeo Watanabe
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Similarity and number of alternatives in the random-dot motion paradigm.

Authors:  Leendert van Maanen; Raoul P P P Grasman; Birte U Forstmann; Max C Keuken; Scott D Brown; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Age-related changes in fine motion direction discriminations.

Authors:  Nadejda Bocheva; Donka Angelova; Miroslava Stefanova
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-05-26       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Low-level sensory plasticity during task-irrelevant perceptual learning: evidence from conventional and double training procedures.

Authors:  Praveen K Pilly; Stephen Grossberg; Aaron R Seitz
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Sensitivity of neurons in the middle temporal area of marmoset monkeys to random dot motion.

Authors:  Tristan A Chaplin; Benjamin J Allitt; Maureen A Hagan; Nicholas S C Price; Ramesh Rajan; Marcello G P Rosa; Leo L Lui
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Response feedback triggers long-term consolidation of perceptual learning independently of performance gains.

Authors:  Jonathan Dobres; Takeo Watanabe
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Prolonged training at threshold promotes robust retinotopic specificity in perceptual learning.

Authors:  Shao-Chin Hung; Aaron R Seitz
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Feature-selective attention in healthy old age: a selective decline in selective attention?

Authors:  Cliodhna Quigley; Matthias M Müller
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Neural mechanisms of motion perceptual learning in noise.

Authors:  Nihong Chen; Junshi Lu; Hanyu Shao; Xuchu Weng; Fang Fang
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  Global motion perception is related to motor function in 4.5-year-old children born at risk of abnormal development.

Authors:  Arijit Chakraborty; Nicola S Anstice; Robert J Jacobs; Nabin Paudel; Linda L LaGasse; Barry M Lester; Christopher J D McKinlay; Jane E Harding; Trecia A Wouldes; Benjamin Thompson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 1.886

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.