Motion detection on flashed, stationary pedestal gratings: evidence for an opponent-motion mechanism

Visual perception in dyslexia is limited by sub-optimal scale selection

Readers with dyslexia are purported to have a selective visual impairment but the underlying nature of the deficit remains elusive. Here, we used a combination of behavioural psychophysics and biologically-motivated computational modeling to investigate if this deficit extends to object segmentation, a process implicated in visual word form recognition. Thirty-eight adults with a wide range of reading abilities were shown random-dot displays spatially divided into horizontal segments. Adjacent segments contained either local motion signals in opposing directions or analogous static form cues depicting orthogonal orientations. Participants had to discriminate these segmented patterns from stimuli containing identical motion or form cues that were spatially intermingled. Results showed participants were unable to perform the motion or form task reliably when segment size was smaller than a spatial resolution (acuity) limit that was independent of reading skill. Coherence thresholds decreased as segment size increased, but for the motion task the rate of improvement was shallower for readers with dyslexia and the segment size where performance became asymptotic was larger. This suggests that segmentation is impaired in readers with dyslexia but only on tasks containing motion information. We interpret these findings within a novel framework in which the mechanisms underlying scale selection are impaired in developmental dyslexia.

Contribution of color signals to ocular following responses

Ocular following responses (OFRs) are elicited at ultra-short latencies (< 60 ms) by sudden movements of the visual scene. In this study, we investigated the roles of color signals in OFRs in monkeys. To make physiologically isoluminant sinusoidal color gratings, we estimated the physiologically isoluminant points using OFRs and found that the physiologically isoluminant points were nearly independent of the spatiotemporal frequency of the gratings. We recorded OFRs induced by the motion of physiologically isoluminant color gratings and found that OFRs elicited by the motion of color gratings had different spatiotemporal frequency tuning from those elicited by the motion of luminance gratings. Additionally, OFRs to isoluminant color gratings had smaller peak responses, suggesting that color signals weakly contribute to OFRs compared with luminance signals. OFRs to the motion of stimuli composed of luminance and color signals were also examined. We found that color signals largely contributed to OFRs under low luminance signals regardless of whether color signals moved in the same or opposite direction to luminance signals. These results provide evidence of the multichannel visual computations underlying motor responses. We conclude that, in everyday situations, color information contributes cooperatively with luminance information to the generation of ocular tracking behaviors.

Adaptation and visual coding

Visual coding is a highly dynamic process and continuously adapting to the current viewing context. The perceptual changes that result from adaptation to recently viewed stimuli remain a powerful and popular tool for analyzing sensory mechanisms and plasticity. Over the last decade, the footprints of this adaptation have been tracked to both higher and lower levels of the visual pathway and over a wider range of timescales, revealing that visual processing is much more adaptable than previously thought. This work has also revealed that the pattern of aftereffects is similar across many stimulus dimensions, pointing to common coding principles in which adaptation plays a central role. However, why visual coding adapts has yet to be fully answered.

Spatial summation properties of the human ocular following response (OFR): evidence for nonlinearities due to local and global inhibitory interactions

Ocular following responses (OFRs) are the initial tracking eye movements that can be elicited at ultra-short latency by sudden motion of a textured pattern. A recent study used motion stimuli consisting of two large coextensive sine-wave gratings with the same orientation but different spatial frequency and moving in (1/4)-wavelength steps in the same or opposite directions: when the two gratings differed in contrast by more than about an octave then the one with the higher contrast completely dominated the OFR and the one with lower contrast lost its influence as though suppressed [Sheliga, B. M., Kodaka, Y., FitzGibbon, E. J., & Miles, F. A. (2006). Human ocular following initiated by competing image motions: Evidence for a winner-take-all mechanism. Vision Research, 46, 2041-2060]. This winner-take-all (WTA) outcome was attributed to nonlinear interactions in the form of mutual inhibition between the mechanisms sensing the competing motions. In the present study, we recorded the initial horizontal OFRs to the horizontal motion of two vertical sine-wave gratings that differed in spatial frequency and were each confined to horizontal strips that extended the full width of our display (45 degrees ) but were only 1-2 degrees high. The two gratings could be coextensive or separated by a vertical gap of up to 8 degrees , and each underwent motion consisting of successive (1/4)-wavelength steps. Initial OFRs showed strong dependence on the relative contrasts of the competing gratings and when these were coextensive this dependence was always highly nonlinear (WTA), regardless of whether the two gratings moved in the same or opposite direction. When the two gratings moved in opposite directions the nonlinear interactions were purely local: with a vertical gap of 1 degrees or more between the gratings OFRs approximated the linear sum of the responses to each grating alone. On the other hand, when the two gratings moved in the same direction the nonlinear interactions were more global: even with a gap of 8 degrees -the largest separation tried-OFRs were still substantially less than predicted by the linear sum. When the motions were in the same direction, we postulate two nonlinear interactions: local mutual inhibition (resulting in WTA) and global divisive inhibition (resulting in normalization). Motion stimuli whose responses were totally suppressed by coextensive opponent motion of higher contrast were rendered invisible to normalization, suggesting that the local interactions responsible for the WTA behavior here occur at an earlier stage of neural processing than the global interactions responsible for normalization.

Ocular following responses of monkeys to the competing motions of two sinusoidal gratings

Ocular following responses (OFRs) were elicited in monkeys at short latencies ( approximately 50ms) by applying motion in the form of successive 1/4-wavelength steps to each of two overlapping vertical sine-wave gratings that had different spatial frequencies. In the first experiment, the two sine waves had spatial frequencies in the ratio 3:5 and moved in opposite directions. The initial OFRs showed a highly nonlinear dependence on the relative contrasts of the competing sine waves. On average, when the contrast of one was less than a third of that of the other then the one with the lower contrast became ineffective - as though suppressed - and the OFR was entirely determined by the sine wave of higher contrast: winner-take-all. In a second experiment, the two sine waves had spatial frequencies in the ratio 3:7 and moved in the same direction (though at different speeds). The initial OFRs again showed a highly nonlinear dependence on the relative contrasts of the competing sine waves, with a winner-take-all outcome when the contrasts of the two sine waves were sufficiently different. In both experiments, the nonlinear dependence on the relative contrasts of the competing sine waves was well described by a contrast-weighted-average model with just two free parameters. These findings were very similar to those of [Sheliga, B.M., Kodaka, Y., FitzGibbon, E.J., Miles, F.A., 2006c. Human ocular following initiated by competing image motions: evidence for a winner-take-all mechanism. Vision Res. 46, 2041-2060] on the human OFR, indicating that the monkey is a good animal model for studying the nonlinear interactions that emerge when competing motions are used.

The vergence eye movements induced by radial optic flow: some fundamental properties of the underlying local-motion detectors

Radial optic flow applied to large random dot patterns is known to elicit horizontal vergence eye movements at short latency, expansion causing convergence and contraction causing divergence: the Radial Flow Vergence Response (RFVR). We elicited RFVRs in human subjects by applying radial motion to concentric circular patterns whose radial luminance modulation was that of a square wave lacking the fundamental: the missing fundamental (mf) stimulus. The radial motion consisted of successive 1/4-wavelength steps, so that the overall pattern and the 4n+1 harmonics (where n=integer) underwent radial expansion (or contraction), whereas the 4n-1 harmonics--including the strongest Fourier component (the 3rd harmonic)--underwent the opposite radial motion. Radial motion commenced only after the subject had fixated the center of the pattern. The initial RFVRs were always in the direction of the 3rd harmonic, e.g., expansion of the mf pattern causing divergence. Thus, the earliest RFVRs were strongly dependent on the motion of the major Fourier component, consistent with early spatio-temporal filtering prior to motion detection, as in the well-known energy model of motion analysis. If the radial mf stimulus was reduced to just two competing harmonics--the 3rd and 5th--the initial RFVRs showed a nonlinear dependence on their relative contrasts: when the two harmonics differed in contrast by more than about an octave then the one with the higher contrast completely dominated the RFVRs and the one with lower contrast lost its influence: winner-take-all. We suggest that these nonlinear interactions result from mutual inhibition between the mechanisms sensing the motion of the different competing harmonics. If single radial-flow steps were used, a brief inter-stimulus interval resulted in reversed RFVRs, consistent with the idea that the motion detectors mediating these responses receive a visual input whose temporal impulse response function is strongly biphasic. Lastly, all of these characteristics of the RFVR, which we attribute to the early cortical processing of visual motion, are known to be shared by the Ocular Following Response (OFR)--a conjugate tracking (version) response elicited at short-latency by linear motion-and even the quantitative details are generally very similar. Thus, although the RFVR and OFR respond to very different patterns of global motion-radial vs. linear-they have very similar local spatiotemporal properties as though mediated by the same low-level, local-motion detectors, which we suggest are in the striate cortex.

The perception of motion in chromatic stimuli

The issue of whether there is a motion mechanism sensitive to purely chromatic stimuli has been pertinent for the past 30 or more years. The aim of this review is to examine why such different conclusions have been drawn in the literature and to reach some reconciliation. The review critically examines the behavioral evidence and concludes that there is a purely chromatic motion mechanism but that it is limited to the fovea. Examination of motion performance for chromatic and luminance stimuli provides convincing evidence that there are at least two different mechanisms for the two kinds of stimuli. The authors further argue that the chromatic mechanism may be at a particular disadvantage when the integration of multiple local motion signals is required. Finally, the authors present a descriptive model that may go some way toward explaining the reasons for the differences in collected data outlined in this article.

Human ocular following initiated by competing image motions: evidence for a winner-take-all mechanism

The initial ocular following responses (OFRs) elicited by 1/4-wavelength steps applied to the missing fundamental (mf) stimulus are in the backward direction and largely determined by the principal Fourier component, the 3rd harmonic [Sheliga, B. M., Chen, K. J., FitzGibbon, E. J., & Miles, F. A. (2005). Initial ocular following in humans: A response to first-order motion energy. Vision Research, 45, 3307-3321]. When the contrast of the 3rd harmonic was selectively reduced below that of the next most prominent harmonic-the 5th, which moves in the opposite (forward) direction-then the OFR reversed direction and the 3rd harmonic effectively lost all of its influence as the OFR was now largely determined by the 5th harmonic. Restricting the stimulus to just two sine waves (of equal efficacy when of equal contrast and presented singly) with the spatial frequencies of the 3rd and 5th harmonics of the mf stimulus indicated that the critical factor was the ratio of their two contrasts: when of similar contrast both were effective (vector sum/averaging), but when the contrast of one was <1/2 that of the other then the one with the lower contrast became ineffective (winner-take-all). This nonlinear dependence on the contrast ratio was attributed to mutual inhibition and was well described by a weighted-average model with just two free parameters. Further experiments with broadband and dual-grating stimuli indicated that nonlinear interactions occur not only in the neural processing of stimuli moving in opposite directions but also of stimuli that share the same direction and differ only in their spatial frequency and speed. Clearly, broad-band and dual-grating stimuli can uncover significant nonlinearities in visual information processing that are not evident with single sine-wave stimuli.

The detection of motion in chromatic stimuli: pedestals and masks

This study seeks to clarify the reasons for some of the differences in the published data on chromatic motion perception, and to provide further support for the existence of a low-level motion mechanism sensitive to purely chromatic change. Observers discriminated the direction of motion of displaced sinusoidal gratings in the presence of a static grating mask (or pedestal). Each component of the stimulus was independently described in cardinal colour space and calibrated for subjective equiluminance using multiple methods. The motion structure, stimulus size, temporal frequency, contrast, relative phase and chromatic properties were all varied parametrically and the data cast in terms of predictions made by two different theoretical approaches to the test-mask combination. The vast majority of the data were well explained by a low-level motion mechanism sensitive to the motion of foveally-placed chromatic stimuli. Data consistent with either higher-level motion perception or a luminance-like signal were found outside the fovea and when the stimulus properties did not otherwise favour chromatic motion perception. There was some explanation of inconsistencies in previously published data and a strong suggestion that previous results showing pedestal-like behaviour for these stimulus combinations were a special case rather than a general result.

Opponent-motion mechanisms are self-normalizing

In the ultimate stage of the Adelson-Bergen motion energy model [Adelson, E. H., & Bergen, J. (1985). Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 2, 284-299], motion is derived from the difference between directionally opponent energies E(L) and E(R). However, Georgeson and Scott-Samuel [Georgeson, M. A., & Scott-Samuel, N. E. (1999). Motion contrast: A new metric for direction discrimination. Vision Research, 39, 4393-4402] demonstrated that motion contrast-a metric that normalizes opponent motion energy (E(L)-E(R)) by flicker energy (E(L)+E(R))-is a better descriptor of human direction discrimination. In a previous study [Rainville, S. J. M., Makous, W. L., & Scott-Samuel, N. E. (2002). The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization. Vision Research, 42, 1727-1738], we used a lateral masking paradigm to show that opponent-motion normalization is selective for flicker position, orientation, and spatial-frequency. In the present study, we used a superposition masking paradigm and compared results to lateral masking data, as the two masking types activate local and remote normalization mechanisms differentially. Although selectivity for flicker orientation and spatial frequency varied across observers, bandwidths were similar across lateral and superimposed masking conditions. Additional experiments demonstrated that normalization signals are pooled over a spatial region whose aspect ratio and size are consistent with those of local motion detectors. Together, results show no evidence of remote normalization signals predicted by broadband inhibitory models [(e.g.) Heeger, D. J. (1992). Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex. Visual Neuroscience, 9, 181-197; Foley, J. M. (1994). Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: Masking experiments require a new model. Journal of the Optical Society of America A-Optics and Image Science, 11, 1710-1719] but support a local normalization process whose spatial properties are inherited from low-level motion detectors.

The detection of motion in chromatic stimuli: first-order and second-order spatial structure

This study provides evidence for the existence of a low-level chromatic motion mechanism and further elucidates the conditions under which its operation becomes measurable in an experimental stimulus. Observers discriminated the direction of motion of amplitude modulated (AM) gratings that were defined by luminance or chromatic variation and masked with spatiotemporally broadband luminance or chromatic noise. The size and retinal location of the stimuli were varied and the effects of broadband noise and grating masks were both compared with the cohort of stimuli. Some significant disparities in the published literature were well explained by the results. In conclusion, evidence for a chromatically sensitive motion mechanism that evades the, detrimental effects of a luminance mask was found only at the fovea and only when the stimulus was small and centrally placed.

Spatial frequency selective masking of first-order and second-order motion in the absence of off-frequency 'looking'

Converging evidence suggests that, at least initially, first-order (luminance defined) and second-order (e.g. contrast defined) motion are processed independently in human vision. However, adaptation studies suggest that second-order motion, like first-order motion, may be encoded by spatial frequency selective mechanisms each operating over a limited range of scales. Nonetheless, the precise properties of these mechanisms are indeterminate since the spatial frequency selectivity of adaptation aftereffects may not necessarily represent the frequency tuning of the underlying units [Vision Research 37 (1997) 2685]. To address this issue we used visual masking to investigate the spatial-frequency tuning of the mechanisms that encode motion. A dual-masking paradigm was employed to derive estimates of the spatial tuning of motion sensors, in the absence of off-frequency 'looking'. Modulation-depth thresholds for identifying the direction of a sinusoidal test pattern were measured over a 4-octave range (0.125-2 c/deg) in both the absence and presence of two counterphasing masks, simultaneously positioned above and below the test frequency. For second-order motion, the resulting masking functions were spatially bandpass in character and remained relatively invariant with changes in test spatial frequency, masking pattern modulation depth and the temporal properties of the noise carrier. As expected, bandpass spatial frequency tuning was also found for first-order motion. This provides compelling evidence that the mechanisms responsible for encoding each variety of motion exhibit spatial frequency selectivity. Thus, although first-order and second-order motion may be encoded independently, they must utilise similar computational principles.

The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization

The final stage of the Adelson-Bergen model [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2 (1985) 284] computes net motion as the difference between directionally opposite energies E(L) and E(R). However, Georgeson and Scott-Samuel [Vis. Res. 39 (1999) 4393] found that human direction discrimination is better described by motion contrast (C(m))--a metric where opponent energy (E(L)-E(R)) is divided by flicker energy (E(L)+E(R)). In the present paper, we used a lateral masking paradigm to investigate the spatial properties of flicker energy involved in the normalization of opponent energy. Observers discriminated between left and right motion while viewing a checkerboard in which half of the checks contained a drifting sinusoid and the other half contained flicker (i.e. a counterphasing sinusoid). The relative luminance contrasts of flicker and motion checks determined the checkerboard's overall motion contrast C(m). We obtained selectivity functions for opponent-motion normalization by measuring C(m) thresholds whilst varying the orientation, spatial frequency, or size of flicker checks. In all conditions, performance (percent correct) decayed lawfully as we decreased motion contrast, validating the C(m) metric for our stimuli. Thresholds decreased with check size and also improved as we increased either the orientation or spatial-frequency difference between motion and flicker checks. Our data are inconsistent with Heeger-type normalization models [Vis. Neurosci. 9 (1992) 181] in which excitatory inputs are normalized by a non-selective pooling of inhibitory inputs, but data are consistent with the implicit assumption in Georgeson and Scott-Samuel's model that flicker normalization is localized in orientation, scale, and space. However, our lateral masking paradigm leaves open the possibility that the spatial properties of flicker normalization would be different if opponent and flicker energies spatially overlapped. Further characterization of motion contrast will require models of the spatial, temporal, and joint space-time properties of mechanisms mediating opponent-motion and flicker normalization.

Three-systems theory of human visual motion perception: review and update

Lu and Sperling [Vision Res. 35, 2697 (1995)] proposed that human visual motion perception is served by three separate motion systems: a first-order system that responds to moving luminance patterns, a second-order system that responds to moving modulations of feature types-stimuli in which the expected luminance is the same everywhere but an area of higher contrast or of flicker moves, and a third-order system that computes the motion of marked locations in a "salience map," that is, a neural representation of visual space in which the locations of important visual features ("figure") are marked and "ground" is unmarked. Subsequently, there have been some strongly confirmatory reports: different gain-control mechanisms for first- and second-order motion, selective impairment of first- versus second- and/or third-order motion by different brain injuries, and the classification of new third-order motions, e.g., isoluminant chromatic motion. Various procedures have successfully discriminated between second- and third-order motion (when first-order motion is excluded): dual tasks, second-order reversed phi, motion competition, and selective adaptation. Meanwhile, eight apparent contradictions to the three-systems theory have been proposed. A review and reanalysis here of the new evidence, pro and con, resolves the challenges and yields a more clearly defined and significantly strengthened theory.

Motion energy versus position tracking: spatial, temporal, and chromatic parameters

The fundamental question in motion perception is whether motion is an interpretation imposed on an object or feature perceived at separate positions at sequential instants, or whether it is the response of direction-sensitive detectors that can extract the motion-energy in the stimulus, i.e. the orientation of spatio-temporal energy. To answer this question we constructed stimuli whose position changed in one direction while the motion energy contained in the same spatial frequency moved in the same or the opposite direction (by superimposing moving sinusoidal gratings on stationary gratings of the same spatial frequency and orientation). In every case tested (0.25-25 Hz temporal frequency; 0.25-1.0 cyc/deg spatial frequency; achromatic and equiluminant contrast), the perceived direction of motion was in the direction of motion energy, indicating the existence of neurons which compute motion direction without explicitly computing spatial position. The measurements also confirmed that motion-energy computations can be modeled as separable in spatial and temporal frequency.

Position-based motion perception for color and texture stimuli: effects of contrast and speed

Motion can be perceived either through low-level, motion-energy detection or through tracking the change in position of features. Previously we have shown that, while luminance-based motion likely is detected with velocity-sensitive motion-energy units, patterns defined by texture or binocular disparity ('second-order' stimuli) were tracked by a position-sensitive mechanism (Seiffert & Cavanagh (1998) Vision Research, 38, 3569-3582). Here, we use the same technique, measuring motion amplitude thresholds of oscillating gratings over a range of temporal frequencies and find that the motion of low-contrast equiluminant red/green gratings is also detected with position tracking. In addition, we find that as contrast or speed increases these results change: high-contrast or high-speed equiluminant color or texture-based motion is detected by velocity-sensitive mechanisms. These results help resolve the dispute over the processes which detect the motion of non-luminance based stimuli. Both systems are available, but their relative efficiency changes as a function of contrast and speed. A position-tracking process is more sensitive at low contrasts and low speeds whereas a motion-energy system is more sensitive at high contrasts and high speeds.

Neural correlates of contrast detection at threshold

Human psychophysical studies have demonstrated that, for stimuli near the threshold of visibility, detection of motion in one direction is unaffected by the superimposition of motion in the opposite direction. To investigate the neural basis for this perceptual phenomenon, we recorded from directionally selective neurons in macaque visual area MT (middle temporal visual area). Contrast thresholds obtained for single gratings moving in a neuron's preferred direction were compared with those obtained for motion presented simultaneously in the neuron's preferred and antipreferred directions. A simple model based on probability summation between neurons tuned to opposite directions could sufficiently account for contrast thresholds revealed psychophysically, suggesting that area MT is likely to provide the neural basis for contrast detection of stimuli modulated in time.

Motion opponency in visual cortex

Perceptual studies suggest that visual motion perception is mediated by opponent mechanisms that correspond to mutually suppressive populations of neurons sensitive to motions in opposite directions. We tested for a neuronal correlate of motion opponency using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity in human visual cortex. There was strong motion opponency in a secondary visual cortical area known as the human MT complex (MT+), but there was little evidence of motion opponency in primary visual cortex. To determine whether the level of opponency in human and monkey are comparable, a variant of these experiments was performed using multiunit electrophysiological recording in areas MT and MST of the macaque monkey brain. Although there was substantial variability in the degree of opponency between recording sites, the monkey and human data were qualitatively similar on average. These results provide further evidence that: (1) direction-selective signals underly human MT+ responses, (2) neuronal signals in human MT+ support visual motion perception, (3) human MT+ is homologous to macaque monkey MT and adjacent motion sensitive brain areas, and (4) that fMRI measurements are correlated with average spiking activity.