OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

| OPTICS, IMAGE SCIENCE, AND VISION

  • Vol. 17, Iss. 9 — Sep. 1, 2000
  • pp: 1525–1534

Stimulus configuration determines the detectability of motion signals in noise

Preeti Verghese, Suzanne P. McKee, and Norberto M. Grzywacz  »View Author Affiliations


JOSA A, Vol. 17, Issue 9, pp. 1525-1534 (2000)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.17.001525


View Full Text Article

Enhanced HTML    Acrobat PDF (191 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

We measured the detectability of moving signal dots in dynamic noise to determine whether local motion signals are preferentially combined along an axis parallel to the direction of motion. Observers were asked to detect a signal composed of three dots moving in a linear trajectory among dynamic noise dots. The signal dots were collinear and equally spaced in a configuration that was either parallel to or perpendicular to their trajectory. The probability of detecting the signal was measured as a function of noise density, over a range of signal dot spacings from 0.5° to 5.0°. At any given noise density, the signal in the parallel configuration was more detectable than that in the perpendicular configuration. Our four observers could tolerate 1.5–2.5 times more noise in the parallel configuration. This improvement is not due merely to temporal summation between consecutive dots in the parallel trajectory. Temporal summation functions measured on our observers indicate that the benefit from spatial coincidence of the dots lasts for no more than 50 ms, whereas the increased detectability of the parallel configuration is observed up to the largest temporal separations tested (210 ms). These results demonstrate that dots arranged parallel to the signal trajectory are more easily detected than those arranged perpendicularly. Moreover, this enhancement points to the existence of visual mechanisms that preferentially organize motion information parallel to the direction of motion.

© 2000 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(330.4060) Vision, color, and visual optics : Vision modeling
(330.4150) Vision, color, and visual optics : Motion detection

History
Original Manuscript: November 8, 1999
Revised Manuscript: May 23, 2000
Manuscript Accepted: May 23, 2000
Published: September 1, 2000

Citation
Preeti Verghese, Suzanne P. McKee, and Norberto M. Grzywacz, "Stimulus configuration determines the detectability of motion signals in noise," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 17, 1525-1534 (2000)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?URI=josaa-17-9-1525


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. D. J. Field, A. Hayes, R. F. Hess, “Contour integration by the human visual system: evidence for a local ‘association field,’ ” Vision Res. 33, 173–193 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. I. Kovacs, B. Julesz, “A closed curve is much more than an incomplete one: effect of closure in figure-ground segmentation,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90, 7495–7497 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. U. Polat, D. Sagi, “Lateral interactions between spatial channels: suppression and facilitation revealed by lateral masking experiments,” Vision Res. 33, 993–999 (1993). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. U. Polat, D. Sagi, “The architecture of perceptual spatial interactions,” Vision Res. 34, 73–78 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. V. S. Ramachandran, S. M. Anstis, “Extrapolation of motion path in human visual perception,” Vision Res. 23, 83–85 (1983). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. K. Nakayama, G. H. Silverman, “Temporal and spatial characteristics of the upper displacement limit for motion in random dots,” Vision Res. 24, 293–299 (1984). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. A. J. van Doorn, J. J. Koenderink, “Spatiotemporal integration in the detection of coherent motion,” Vision Res. 24, 47–53 (1984). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. S. P. McKee, L. Welch, “Sequential recruitment in the discrimination of velocity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 243–251 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. S. M. Anstis, V. S. Ramachandran, “Visual inertia in apparent motion,” Vision Res. 27, 755–764 (1987). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. R. J. Snowden, O. J. Braddick, “The combination of motion signals over time,” Vision Res. 29, 1621–1630 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. P. Werkhoven, H. P. Snippe, J. J. Koenderink, “Effects of element orientation on apparent motion perception,” Percept. Psychophys. 47, 509–525 (1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. S. N. J. Watamaniuk, S. P. McKee, N. M. Grzywacz, “Detecting a trajectory embedded in random-direction motion noise,” Vision Res. 35, 65–77 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. N. M. Grzywacz, S. N. J. Watamaniuk, S. P. McKee, “Temporal coherence theory for the detection and measurement of visual motion,” Vision Res. 35, 3183–3203 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. P. Verghese, S. N. J. Watamaniuk, S. P. McKee, “Local motion detectors cannot account for the detectability of an extended trajectory in noise,” Vision Res. 39, 19–30 (1999). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. R. E. Fredericksen, F. A. J. Verstraten, W. A. van de Grind, “Spatial summation and its interaction with the temporal integration mechanism in human motion perception,” Vision Res. 34, 3171–3188 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. S. M. Anderson, D. C. Burr, “Spatial summation properties of directionally selective mechanisms in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 1330–1339 (1991). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. K. Nakayama, G. H. Silverman, D. I. A. MacLeod, J. Mulligan, “Sensitivity to shearing and compressive motion in random dots,” Perception 14, 225–238 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. P. Verghese, L. S. Stone, “Combining speed information across space,” Vision Res. 35, 2811–2823 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Z-L. Lu, B. A. Dosher, “External noise distinguishes attention mechanisms,” Vision Res. 38, 1183–1198 (1998). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. J. Palmer, P. Verghese, M. Pavel, “The psychophysics of visual search,” Vision Res. 40, 1227–1268 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. E. H. Adelson, J. R. Bergen, “Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 284–299 (1985). [CrossRef]
  22. J. P. Jones, L. A. Palmer, “An evaluation of the two-dimensional Gabor filter model of simple receptive fields in cat striate cortex,” J. Neurophysiol. 58, 1233–1258 (1987). [PubMed]
  23. S. M. Anderson, D. C. Burr, M. C. Morrone, “Two-dimensional spatial and spatial-frequency selectivity of motion-sensitive mechanisms in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 1340–1351 (1991). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. R. S. Hubbard, J. A. Marshall, “Self-organizing neural network model of the visual inertia phenomenon in motion perception,” (Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, N. Car., 1994).
  25. P-Y. Burgi, A. L. Yuille, N. M. Grzywacz, “Probabilistic motion estimation based on temporal coherence,” Neural Comput. (to be published).
  26. Since the trajectory passes so close to the fixation point, it is detected almost perfectly if we set the number of possible directions to two, as in Fredericksen et al. (Ref. 15). This is true even at the highest noise density that we used. Setting the number of directions to eight considerably increases the uncertainty of the signal trajectory.
  27. J. Nachmias, R. V. Sansbury, “Grating contrast: Discrimination may be better than detection,” Vision Res. 14, 1039–1042 (1974). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. A. B. Watson, J. Nachmias, “Patterns of temporal interaction in the detection of gratings,” Vision Res. 17, 893–902 (1977). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. G. E. Legge, J. M. Foley, “Contrast masking in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70, 1458–1471 (1980). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. D. M. Green, J. A. Swets, Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Wiley, New York, 1966).
  31. The d′additivity equation assumes an underlying Gaussian probability distribution, which is not unreasonable. Alternatively, one could calculate probability summation using a high-threshold model, P3=1-(1-P1)3,where P3and P1are the true probabilities of detecting three- and one-dot trajectories, respectively. The high-threshold model yields slightly higher predictions for probability summation, but the error bars on our data roughly span this difference, so it is hard to differentiate between the high-threshold and the d′additivity versions of probability summation.
  32. M. C. Morrone, D. C. Burr, L. M. Vaina, “Two stages of visual processing for radial and circular motion,” Nature 376, 507–509 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. L. Santoro, D. C. Burr, “Temporal integration of optic flow,” Perception (Suppl.) 28, 90 (1999).
  34. W. S. Geisler, “Motion streaks provide a spatial code for motion direction,” Nature (London) 400, 65–69 (1999). [CrossRef]
  35. M. J. Berry, I. H. Brivanlou, T. A. Jordan, M. Meister, “Anticipation of moving stimuli by the retina,” Nature 398, 334–338 (1999). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. R. Nijhawan, “Motion extrapolation in catching,” Nature 370, 256–257 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited