D Regan1. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Some objects are perfectly camouflaged when stationary, but are clearly visible when moving; the boundaries of such an object are defined entirely by motion parallax. Little is known about the eye's ability to make spatial discriminations between motion-defined objects. In this study, subjects viewed a pseudo-random pattern of dots within which a camouflaged bar was made visible by relative motion of dots. Vernier acuity for the motion-defined bar was 27-45 sec arc for three subjects, much less than the interdot separation of 360 sec arc, much less than the 2 deg receptive field size for motion, and comparable with the foveal intercone separation of 30 sec arc. It is proposed that an opponent-orientation process and an opponent-position process can both contribute to vernier judgements for motion-defined objects. Real-world motion contrast commonly confounds the following cues for figure-ground segregation: (1) different texture velocities on either side of the figure's boundary; (2) in any given time interval, texture in figure and ground moves different distances; and (3) texture continually appears and disappears along the figure's boundary. When cues (2) and (3) were eliminated, thus ensuring figure-ground segregation was achieved entirely by motion-sensitive neural elements, vernier acuity was 44 +/- 5 sec arc compared with 36 +/- 8 sec arc for a dotted bar defined by luminance contrast. CONCLUSION: Vernier acuity for a dotted bar whose boundary was defined entirely by motion-sensitive neural elements was similar to vernier acuity for a dotted bar whose boundary was defined by luminance contrast.
UNLABELLED: Some objects are perfectly camouflaged when stationary, but are clearly visible when moving; the boundaries of such an object are defined entirely by motion parallax. Little is known about the eye's ability to make spatial discriminations between motion-defined objects. In this study, subjects viewed a pseudo-random pattern of dots within which a camouflaged bar was made visible by relative motion of dots. Vernier acuity for the motion-defined bar was 27-45 sec arc for three subjects, much less than the interdot separation of 360 sec arc, much less than the 2 deg receptive field size for motion, and comparable with the foveal intercone separation of 30 sec arc. It is proposed that an opponent-orientation process and an opponent-position process can both contribute to vernier judgements for motion-defined objects. Real-world motion contrast commonly confounds the following cues for figure-ground segregation: (1) different texture velocities on either side of the figure's boundary; (2) in any given time interval, texture in figure and ground moves different distances; and (3) texture continually appears and disappears along the figure's boundary. When cues (2) and (3) were eliminated, thus ensuring figure-ground segregation was achieved entirely by motion-sensitive neural elements, vernier acuity was 44 +/- 5 sec arc compared with 36 +/- 8 sec arc for a dotted bar defined by luminance contrast. CONCLUSION: Vernier acuity for a dotted bar whose boundary was defined entirely by motion-sensitive neural elements was similar to vernier acuity for a dotted bar whose boundary was defined by luminance contrast.
Authors: Ming Chen; Peichao Li; Shude Zhu; Chao Han; Haoran Xu; Yang Fang; Jiaming Hu; Anna W Roe; Haidong D Lu Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Lars Strother; Pavagada S Mathuranath; Adrian Aldcroft; Cheryl Lavell; Melvyn A Goodale; Tutis Vilis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 3.240