Literature DB >> 8351836

Spatiotemporal properties of motion perception for random-check contrast modulations.

S Nishida1.   

Abstract

To clarify the mechanism of detecting the motion of contrast modulations, the spatiotemporal properties of direction discrimination for contrast motion were examined. The stimulus was a microbalanced random stimulus [Chubb and Sperling (1988) Journal of the Optical Society of America A 5, 1986-2007], termed random-window kinematogram (RWK), a shifting random checkerboard pattern in which each check was either a patch of random dots (uncorrelated between frames) or a patch of uniform gray having the mean luminance of the random dots. The effect of exposure duration (ED) on RWK discrimination could be described as stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) dependency when EDs of the first and second frames were the same, but the performance was better than predicted from SOA when the first ED was short while the second was long. RWK could be seen at longer inter-stimulus intervals than random-dot kinematogram (RDK) having similar stimulus parameters (e.g. check size, effective contrast). Incoherent motion (e.g. reversed phi) could be seen for RWK. Maximum displacement limit (Dmax) for RWK was comparable to that of RDK, but it increased in proportion to check size, while Dmax for RDK did not. These results suggest that the contrast motion mechanism extracts motion locally, and involves a correlation-type motion extraction stage similar to the luminance motion mechanism. In addition, the spatial ranges of the contrast motion detectors are comparable to those of the luminance motion detectors, but their temporal range is larger. The contrast motion mechanism is more scale-invariant than the luminance motion mechanism.

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8351836     DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(93)90184-x

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


  8 in total

1.  Reversed short-latency ocular following.

Authors:  G S Masson; D-S Yang; F A Miles
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  The initial ocular following responses elicited by apparent-motion stimuli: reversal by inter-stimulus intervals.

Authors:  B M Sheliga; K J Chen; E J FitzGibbon; F A Miles
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-10-18       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Second-order motion without awareness: passive adaptation to second-order motion produces a motion aftereffect.

Authors:  David Whitney; David W Bressler
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Stereoscopic and contrast-defined motion in human vision.

Authors:  A T Smith; N E Scott-Samuel
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  1998-08-22       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Increasing stimulus size impairs first- but not second-order motion perception.

Authors:  Davis M Glasser; Duje Tadin
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-11-23       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  The visual motion detectors underlying ocular following responses in monkeys.

Authors:  Kenichiro Miura; Kiyoto Matsuura; Masakatsu Taki; Hiromitsu Tabata; Naoko Inaba; Kenji Kawano; Frederick A Miles
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2005-12-13       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Contrast detection in infants with fragile X syndrome.

Authors:  F Farzin; D Whitney; R J Hagerman; S M Rivera
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-05-23       Impact factor: 1.886

8.  Common and independent processing of visual motion perception and oculomotor response.

Authors:  Sanae Yoshimoto; Tomoyuki Hayasaka
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 2.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.