OSA's Digital Library

Journal of the Optical Society of America A

Journal of the Optical Society of America A


  • Vol. 18, Iss. 9 — Sep. 1, 2001
  • pp: 2321–2330

Interaction of first- and second-order direction in motion-defined motion

Johannes M. Zanker and Nicholas R. Burns  »View Author Affiliations

JOSA A, Vol. 18, Issue 9, pp. 2321-2330 (2001)

View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (456 KB)

Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools



Motion-defined motion can play a special role in the discussion of whether one or two separate systems are required to process first- and second-order information because, in contrast to other second-order stimuli, such as contrast-modulated contours, motion detection cannot be explained by a simple input nonlinearity but requires preprocessing by motion detectors. Furthermore, the perceptual quality that defines an object (motion on the object surface) is identical to that which is attributed to the object as an emergent feature (motion of the object), raising the question of how these two object properties are linked. The interaction of first- and second-order information in such stimuli has been analyzed previously in a direction-discrimination task, revealing some cooperativity. Because any comprehensive integration of these two types of motion information should be reflected in the most fundamental property of a moving object, i.e., the direction in which it moves, we now investigate how motion direction is estimated in motion-defined objects. Observers had to report the direction of moving objects that were defined by luminance contrast or in random-dot kinematograms by differences in the spatiotemporal properties between the object region and the random-noise background. When the dots were moving coherently with the object (Fourier motion), direction sensitivity resembled that for luminance-defined objects, but performance deteriorated when the dots in the object region were static (drift-balanced motion). When the dots on the object surface were moving diagonally relative to the object direction (theta motion), the general level of accuracy declined further, and the perceived direction was intermediate between the veridical object motion direction and the direction of dot motion, indicating that the first- and second-order velocity vectors are somehow pooled. The inability to separate first- and second-order directional information suggests that the two corresponding subsystems of motion processing are not producing independent percepts and provides clues for possible implementations of the two-layer motion-processing network.

© 2001 Optical Society of America

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

Johannes M. Zanker and Nicholas R. Burns, "Interaction of first- and second-order direction in motion-defined motion," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 2321-2330 (2001)

Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset


  1. J. M. Zanker and J. Zeil, Motion Vision: Computational, Neural and Ecological Constraints (Springer, Berlin, 2001).
  2. P. Cavanagh and G. Mather, “Motion: the long and short of it,” Spatial Vision 4, 103–129 (1989).
  3. G. Sperling, “Three stages and two systems of visual processing,” Spatial Vision 4, 183–207 (1989).
  4. C. Chubb and G. Sperling, “Drift-balanced random stimuli: a general basis for studying non-Fourier motion perception,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 5, 1986–2006 (1988).
  5. T. Poggio and W. Reichardt, “On the representation of multi-input systems: computational properties of polynomial algorithms,” Biol. Cybern. 37, 167–186 (1980).
  6. J. M. Zanker, “Of models and men: mechanisms of human motion perception,” in Early Vision and Beyond, T. V. Papathomas, C. Chubb, A. Gorea, and E. Kowler, eds. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1995), pp. 156–165.
  7. Z.-L. Lu and G. Sperling, “Attention-generation apparent motion,” Nature 377, 237–239 (1995).
  8. G. Sperling and Z.-L. Lu, “A systems analysis of visual motion perception,” in High-Level Motion Processing, T. Watanabe, ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1998), pp. 153–183.
  9. A. Johnston, P. W. McOwan, and H. Buxton, “A computational model of the analysis of some first-order and second-order motion patterns by simple and complex cells,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 250, 297–306 (1992).
  10. J. M. Zanker, “Theta motion: a new psychophysical paradigm indicating two levels of visual motion perception,” Naturwissenschaften 77, 243–246 (1990).
  11. J. M. Zanker, “On the elementary mechanism underlying secondary motion processing,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 351, 1725–1736 (1996).
  12. J. M. Zanker, “Theta motion: a paradoxical stimulus to explore higher order motion extraction,” Vision Res. 33, 553–569 (1993).
  13. D. R. Patzwahl, J. M. Zanker, and E. Altenmüller, “Cortical potentials reflecting motion processing in humans,” Visual Neurosci. 11, 1135–1147 (1994).
  14. D. Braun, D. Petersen, P. Schönle, and M. Fahle, “Deficits and recovery of first-order and second-order motion perception in patients with unilateral cortical lesions,” Eur. J. Neurosci. 10, 2117–2128 (1998).
  15. D. R. Patzwahl and J. M. Zanker, “Mechanisms for human motion perception: combining evidence from evoked potentials, behavioural performance and computational modelling,” Eur. J. Neurosci. 12, 273–282 (2000).
  16. O. J. Braddick, “Motion may be seen but not used,” Curr. Biol. 2, 587–589 (1992).
  17. D. R. Patzwahl, J. M. Zanker, and E. Altenmüller, “Cortical potentials in humans reflecting the direction of object motion,” NeuroReport 4, 379–882 (1993).
  18. D. R. Patzwahl, T. Elbert, J. M. Zanker, and E. Altenmüller, “The cortical representation of object motion in man is interindividually variable,” NeuroReport 7, 469–472 (1996).
  19. A. M. Derrington and D. R. Badcock, “Separate detectors for simple and complex grating patterns?” Vision Res. 25, 1869–1878 (1985).
  20. H. R. Wilson, V. P. Ferrera, and C. Yo, “A psychophysically motivated model for two-dimensional motion perception,” Visual Neurosci. 9, 79–97 (1992).
  21. Y.-X. Zhou and C. L. Baker, Jr., “A processing stream in mammalian visual cortex neurons for non-Fourier responses,” Science 261, 98–101 (1993).
  22. J. C. Boulton and C. L. Baker, Jr., “Dependence on stimulus onset asynchrony in apparent motion: evidence for two mechanisms,” Vision Res. 33, 2013–2019 (1993).
  23. A. T. Smith and T. Ledgeway, “Separate detection of moving luminance and contrast modulations: fact or artifact?,” Vision Res. 37, 45–62 (1997).
  24. N. E. Scott-Samuel and M. A. Georgeson, “Does early non-linearity account for second-order motion?” Vision Res. 39, 2853–2865 (1999).
  25. O. J. Braddick, “Moving on the surface,” Curr. Biol. 4, 534–536 (1994).
  26. J. M. Zanker and I. S. Hüpgens, “Interaction between primary and secondary mechanisms in human motion perception,” Vision Res. 34, 1255–1266 (1994).
  27. O. J. Braddick, “A short-range process in apparent motion,” Vision Res. 14, 519–527 (1974).
  28. A. M. M. Lelkens and J. J. Koenderink, “Illusory motion in visual displays,” Vision Res. 24, 1083–1090 (1984).
  29. C. Chubb and G. Sperling, “Two motion perception mechanisms revealed through distance-driven reversal of apparent motion,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86, 2985–2989 (1989).
  30. B. L. Gros, R. Blake, and E. Hiris, “Anisotropies in visual motion perception: a fresh look,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 15, 2003–2011 (1998).
  31. E. G. J. Pitman, “A note on normal correlation,” Biometrika 31, 9–12 (1939).
  32. J. M. Zanker, “Perceptual learning in primary and secondary motion vision,” Vision Res. 39, 1293–1304 (1999).
  33. B. J. Murphy, E. Kowler, and R. M. Steinman, “Slow oculomotor control in the presence of moving backgrounds,” Vision Res. 15, 1263–1268 (1975).
  34. P. E. Hallett, “Eye movements,” in Handbook of Perception and Human Performance I. K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. P. Thomas, eds. (Wiley, New York, 1986), pp. 10–1–10–112.
  35. L. R. Harris and A. T. Smith, “Interactions between first- and second-order motion revealed by optokinetic nystagmus,” Exp. Brain Res. 130, 67–72 (2000).
  36. A. Lindner and U. J. Ilg, “Initiation of smooth-pursuit eye movements to first-order and second-order motion stimuli,” Exp. Brain Res. 133, 450–456 (2000).
  37. R. L. DeValois and K. K. DeValois, “Vernier acuity with stationary moving Gabors,” Vision Res. 31, 1619–1626 (1991).
  38. T. Banton and D. M. Levi, “Spatial localization of motion-defined and luminance-defined contours,” Vision Res. 33, 2225–2237 (1993).
  39. A. Hayes, “Apparent position governs contour-element binding by the visual system,” Proc. R. Soc. London B 267, 1341–1345 (2000).
  40. S. Nishida and A. Johnston, “Influence of motion signals on the perceived position of spatial pattern,” Nature 397, 610–612 (1999).
  41. W. A. Van de Grind, J. J. Koenderink, and A. J. Van Doorn, “The distribution of human motion detector properties in the monocular visual field,” Vision Res. 26, 797–810 (1986).
  42. S. J. Anderson and D. C. Burr, “Spatial summation properties of directionally selective mechanisms in human vision,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 8, 1330–1339 (1991).

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