Literature DB >> 23467358

Illusory movement of stationary stimuli in the visual periphery: evidence for a strong centrifugal prior in motion processing.

Ruyuan Zhang1, Oh-Sang Kwon, Duje Tadin.   

Abstract

Visual input is remarkably diverse. Certain sensory inputs are more probable than others, mirroring statistical regularities of the visual environment. The visual system exploits many of these regularities, resulting, on average, in better inferences about visual stimuli. However, by incorporating prior knowledge into perceptual decisions, visual processing can also result in perceptions that do not match sensory inputs. Such perceptual biases can often reveal unique insights into underlying mechanisms and computations. For example, a prior assumption that objects move slowly can explain a wide range of motion phenomena. The prior on slow speed is usually rationalized by its match with visual input, which typically includes stationary or slow moving objects. However, this only holds for foveal and parafoveal stimulation. The visual periphery tends to be exposed to faster motions, which are biased toward centrifugal directions. Thus, if prior assumptions derive from experience, peripheral motion processing should be biased toward centrifugal speeds. Here, in experiments with human participants, we support this hypothesis and report a novel visual illusion where stationary objects in the visual periphery are perceived as moving centrifugally, while objects moving as fast as 7°/s toward fovea are perceived as stationary. These behavioral results were quantitatively explained by a Bayesian observer that has a strong centrifugal prior. This prior is consistent with both the prevalence of centrifugal motions in the visual periphery and a centrifugal bias of direction tuning in cortical area MT, supporting the notion that visual processing mirrors its input statistics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23467358      PMCID: PMC3660051          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4744-12.2013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  41 in total

Review 1.  Object perception as Bayesian inference.

Authors:  Daniel Kersten; Pascal Mamassian; Alan Yuille
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  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

3.  Experience can change the 'light-from-above' prior.

Authors:  Wendy J Adams; Erich W Graf; Marc O Ernst
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2004-09-07       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  Differential effects of central verses peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception.

Authors:  T Brandt; J Dichgans; E Koenig
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1973-03-19       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Perceived rate of movement depends on contrast.

Authors:  P Thompson
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Apparent foveofugal drift of counterphase gratings.

Authors:  M A Georgeson; M G Harris
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.490

8.  A local mechanism for differential velocity detection.

Authors:  S P McKee
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1981       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Human vision favors centrifugal motion.

Authors:  K Ball; R Sekuler
Journal:  Perception       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 1.490

10.  Peripheral vision of youths with low vision: motion perception, crowding, and visual search.

Authors:  Duje Tadin; Jeffrey B Nyquist; Kelly E Lusk; Anne L Corn; Joseph S Lappin
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Subjective inflation: phenomenology's get-rich-quick scheme.

Authors:  J D Knotts; Brian Odegaard; Hakwan Lau; David Rosenthal
Journal:  Curr Opin Psychol       Date:  2018-11-14

Review 2.  Suppressive mechanisms in visual motion processing: From perception to intelligence.

Authors:  Duje Tadin
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Natural auditory scene statistics shapes human spatial hearing.

Authors:  Cesare V Parise; Katharina Knorre; Marc O Ernst
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-04-07       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Priming of probabilistic attentional templates.

Authors:  Árni Kristjánsson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-07-13

5.  Speed Constancy or Only Slowness: What Drives the Kappa Effect.

Authors:  Youguo Chen; Bangwu Zhang; Konrad Paul Kording
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Learning What to See in a Changing World.

Authors:  Katharina Schmack; Veith Weilnhammer; Jakob Heinzle; Klaas E Stephan; Philipp Sterzer
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Repeated exposure to either consistently spatiotemporally congruent or consistently incongruent audiovisual stimuli modulates the audiovisual common-cause prior.

Authors:  Stephanie Badde; Michael S Landy; Fangfang Hong
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 4.996

Review 8.  Learning what to expect (in visual perception).

Authors:  Peggy Seriès; Aaron R Seitz
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 3.169

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.