scholarly journals Monkey and humans exhibit similar motion-processing mechanisms

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 815-815
Author(s):  
W. Curran ◽  
C. Lynn
Keyword(s):  
Motion Processing ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

scholarly journals A comparison of monkey and human motion processing mechanisms

2010 ◽  
Vol 50 (21) ◽  
pp. 2137-2141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Lynn ◽  
William Curran
Keyword(s):  
Human Motion ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

scholarly journals Differential aging of motion processing mechanisms: Evidence against general perceptual decline

2008 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 1254-1261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta Billino ◽  
Frank Bremmer ◽  
Karl R. Gegenfurtner
Keyword(s):  
Motion Processing ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

Vection Aftereffects from Expanding/Contracting Stimuli

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeharu Seno ◽  
Shoji Sunaga ◽  
Hiroyuki Ito
Keyword(s):  
Optic Flow ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Motion Aftereffects ◽  
Processing Mechanisms ◽  
Direction Opposite

AbstractWe presented three types of visual stimuli (blank, static and dynamic random dots) following optic flow stimuli and measured the durations of the motion aftereffects (MAEs) and aftereffects of vection (vection aftereffects, VAEs). The VAEs were induced in the direction opposite to the MAEs. However, the VAEs were not the same as the vection induced by the MAEs because the VAEs were sustained even after the MAEs vanished. In addition, when vection was facilitated or inhibited by the static dot plane in front or in the back of the optic flow, only the VAE strength was modulated, while the MAE was constant between the two conditions. From these results, we conclude that the vection-inducing mechanism shares some neural units with the motion processing mechanisms but has an additional aspect that adapts independently of the motion processing mechanisms.

scholarly journals Motion Streaks Do Not Influence the Perceived Position of Stationary Flashed Objects

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Andrea Pavan ◽  
Rosilari Bellacosa Marotti
Keyword(s):  
Fast Moving ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Shape Processing ◽  
Slow Moving ◽  
Fast Motion ◽  
Position Shift ◽  
Background Motion ◽  
Processing Mechanisms ◽  
Local Distortions ◽  
Central Fixation

In the present study, we investigated whether motion streaks, produced by fast moving dots Geisler 1999, distort the positional map of stationary flashed objects producing the well-known motion-induced position shift illusion (MIPS). The illusion relies on motion-processing mechanisms that induce local distortions in the positional map of the stimulus which is derived by shape-processing mechanisms. To measure the MIPS, two horizontally offset Gaussian blobs, placed above and below a central fixation point, were flashed over two fields of dots moving in opposite directions. Subjects judged the position of the top Gaussian blob relative to the bottom one. The results showed that neither fast (motion streaks) nor slow moving dots influenced the perceived spatial position of the stationary flashed objects, suggesting that background motion does not interact with the shape-processing mechanisms involved in MIPS.

scholarly journals Plasticity of human motion processing mechanisms following surgery for infantile esotropia

1995 ◽  
Vol 35 (23-24) ◽  
pp. 3279-3296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony M. Norcia ◽  
Russell D. Hamer ◽  
Arthur Jampolsky ◽  
Deborah Orel-Bixler
Keyword(s):  
Human Motion ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Infantile Esotropia ◽  
Processing Mechanisms

Timing Accuracy in Motion Extrapolation: Reverse Effects of Target Size and Visible Extent of Motion at Low and High Speeds

Perception ◽  
10.1068/p3397 ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 699-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Sokolov ◽  
Marina Pavlova
Keyword(s):  
Absolute Error ◽  
Human Vision ◽  
Target Size ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Timing Accuracy ◽  
Low Speed ◽  
Motion Extrapolation ◽  
High Speeds ◽  
Processing Mechanisms ◽  
Scaling Algorithms

By varying target size, speed, and extent of visible motion we examined the timing accuracy in motion extrapolation. Small or large targets (0.2 or 0.8 deg) moved at either 2.5, 5, or 10 deg s−1 across a horizontal path (2.5 or 10 deg) and then vanished behind an occluder. Observers responded when they judged that the target had reached a randomly specified position between 0 and 12 deg. With higher speeds, the timing accuracy (the reverse of absolute error) was better for small than for large targets, and for long than for short visible extents. With low speed, these effects were reversed. In addition, while long visible extents yielded a greater accuracy at high than at low speeds, for short extents the accuracy was much better with the low speed. The findings suggest that, when extrapolating motion with targets and visible extents of different sizes, the visual system implements different scaling algorithms depending on target speed. At higher speeds, processing of visible and occluded motion is likely to share a common scaling mechanism based on velocity transposition. Reverse effects for target size and extent of visible motion at low and high speeds converge with the assumption of two distinct speed-tuned motion-processing mechanisms in human vision.

Challenges to normal neural functioning provide insights into separability of motion processing mechanisms

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (12) ◽  
pp. 3151-3163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jutta Billino ◽  
Doris I. Braun ◽  
Frank Bremmer ◽  
Karl R. Gegenfurtner
Keyword(s):  
Motion Processing ◽  
Processing Mechanisms
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document