[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Log in

Viewing-distance invariance of movement detection

  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Since visual movement information is often presented in electronic displays or films it is amazing that there is a paucity of research on the influence of viewing distance on motion detection in cinematograms. We report a relatively high degree of detection constancy with changing viewing distance for coherent motion in random-pixel cinematograms. A constant performance irrespective of viewing-distance is called ‘distance-invariance’ and for motion detection it proves to hold reasonably well for a relatively wide range of viewing distances both for foveal and eccentric vision. The limits of this viewing-distance invariance are explored as a function of screen velocity. Detection performance is quantified by a theshold signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR-) value, S, which is determined as a function of velocity for a range of viewing distances from 53 to 13476 mm for foveal vision and from 60 to 1925 mm at 24° eccentricity on the nasal horizontal meridian of the right eye's retina. The data can be explained, at least qualitatively, by a model in which a spatial-resolution stack has a stack of velocity-tuned motion detectors at every resolution layer. Such a ‘stack-of-stacks’ model is in line with proposals for contrast-detection stack-models, but it suggests that the usual hypothesis that motion perception is based on the activity of two separate systems, the short-range and the long-range system, might be superfluous. This two-systems distinction was largely based on the different performance found for moving random dot patterns and moving form-defined stimuli. A moving random pixel array viewed at very close range (e.g. 6 cm) presents the subject with relatively large almost square ‘blobs’, which are less dissimilar from the phi-stimuli used in classic motion perception studies than random dot stimuli at the usual medium to large viewing distances. It leads to maximum displacement threshold (Dm-) values that are not untypical of the ‘long-range’ system, but by gradually increasing the viewing-distance and thus decreasing the pixel-size a continuous change is found from typical long-range to typical short-range values of Dm. The two-systems distinction for motion detection appears to refer to the stimulus rather than to the visual system: The motion-detection system might be forced into a local or a global ‘mode of operation’ by the choice of stimulus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker CL, Braddick OJ (1985) Eccentricity dependent scaling of the limits for short range apparent motion preception. Vision Res 25:803–812

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker CL, Braddick OJ (1982) The basis of area and dot number effects in random dot motion perception. Vision Res 22:1253–1259

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow HB, Levick WR (1965) The mechanism of directionally selective units in the rabbit's retina. J Physiol 178:447–504

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg AV, van de Grind WA (1989) Reaction times to motion onset and motion detecton thresholds reflect the properties of bilocal motion detectors. Vision Res 29:1261–1266

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg AV, van de Grind WA, van Doorn AJ (1990) Motion detection in the presence of local orientation changes. J Opt Soc Am A7:933–939

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg AV, van de Grind WA (1991) Conditions for the detection of coherent motion. Vision Res 30:1039–1051

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulton JC, Baker CL (1991) Motion detection is dependent on spatial frequency not size. Vision Res 31:77–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Braddick OJ (1974) A short-range process in apparent motion. Vision Res 14:519–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr D, Ross J (1986) Visual processing of motion. TINS 9:304–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Burr D, Ross J (1987) Visual analysis during motion. In: Arbib A, Hanson AR (eds) Vision, brain, and cooperative computation. MIT Press Cambridge Mass pp 187–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh P, Mather G (1989) Motion: The long and short of it. Spatial Vision 4:103–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang JJ, Julesz B (1983) Displacement limits, directional anisotropy and direction versus form discrimination in random-dot cinematograms. Vision Res 23:639–646

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ (1982a) Temporal properties of the visual detectability of moving spatial white noise. Exp Brain Res 45:179–188

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ (1982b) Spatial properties of the visual detectability of moving spatial white noise. Exp Brain Res 45:189–195

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ (1982c) Visibility of movement gradients. Biol Cybern 44:167–175

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ (1983) Detectability of velocity gradients in moving random-dot patterns. Vision Res 23:799–804

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ (1983) The structure of the human motion detection system. IEEE Trans SMC-13:916–922

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ (1984) Spatiotemporal integration in the detection of coherent motion. Vision Res 24:47–53

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ, van de Grind WA (1984) Limits in spatio-temporal correlation and the perception of visual movement. In: van Doorn AJ, van de Grind WA, Koenderink JJ (eds) Limits in perception. VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 203–234

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ, van de Grind WA (1985) Perception of movement and correlation in stroboscopically presented noise patterns. Perception 14:209–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhorn R, Reitboeck HJ, Arndt M, Dicke P (1989) A neural network for feature linking via synchronous activity: results from cat visual cortex and from simulations. In: Dotterill RMJ (ed) Models of brain function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 255–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhorn R, Reitboeck HJ, Dicke P, Arndt M, Kruse W (1990a) Feature linking across cortical maps via synchronization. In: Eckmiller R (ed) Proc. Int. Conf. Parallel processing in neural systems and computers. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 100–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhorn R, Reitboeck HJ, Arndt M, Dicke P (1960b) Feature linking among distributed assemblies: Simulations and results from cat visual cortex. Neural Computation 2:293–306

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Grind WA, Koenderink JJ, van Doorn AJ (1986) The distribution of human motion detection properties in the monocular visual field. Vision Res 26:797–810

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Grind WA, Koenderink JJ, van Doorn AJ (1987) Influence of contrast on foveal and peripheral detection of coherent motion in moving random-dot patterns. J Opt Soc Am A4:1643–1652

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Grind WA, van Doorn AJ, Koenderink JJ (1983) Detection of coherent movement in peripherally viewed random-dot patterns. J Opt Soc Am 73:1674–1683

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Grind WA, Koenderink JJ, van Doorn AJ (1988) Distance invariance in human global movement detection. Perception 17:350, A12

    Google Scholar 

  • Koenderink JJ, van Doorn AJ, van de Grind WA (1985) Spatial and temporal parameters of motion detection in the peripheral visual field. J Opt Soc Am A2:252–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappin JS, Bell HH (1976) The detection of coherence in moving random-dot patterns. Vision Res 16:161–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MJ (1992) Spatial filtering precedes motion detection. Nature 355:344–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Movshon JA, Adelson AE, Gizzi MS, Newsome WT (1985) The analysis of moving visual patterns. In: Gatass CC, Gross CG (eds) Study group on pattern recognition mechanisms. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia 54, Vatican City, pp 117–151

  • Nakayama K (1985) Biological image motion processing: a review. Vision Res 25:625–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennartz CMA, van de Grind WA (1990) Simulation of movement detection by direction-selective ganglion cells in the rabbit and squirrel retina. Vision Res 30:1223–1234

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichardt W (1961) Autocorrelation, a principle for the evaluation of sensory information by the central nervous system. In Rosenblith WA (ed) Sensory communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 303–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato T (1990) Effects of dot size and dot density on motion perception with random-dot kinematograms. Perception 19, A7:329

    Google Scholar 

  • Schouten JF (1967) Subjective stroboscopy and a model of visual movement detectors. In: Wathen-Dunn W (ed) Models for the perception of speech and visual form. The M. I. T. Press, Cambridge Mass, pp 44–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekuler R, Anstis S, Braddick OJ, Brandt T, Movshon JA, Orban G (1990) The perception of motion. In: Spillmann L, Werner JS (eds) Visual perception. The neurophysiological foundations. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 205–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowden RJ, Braddick OJ (1989) Extension of displacement limits in multiple-exposure sequences of apparent motion. Vision Res 29:1777–1787

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh L (1989) The perception of moving plaids reveals two motion-processing stages. Nature 337:734–736

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van de Grind, W.A., Koenderink, J.J. & van Doorn, A.J. Viewing-distance invariance of movement detection. Exp Brain Res 91, 135–150 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00230022

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00230022

Key words

Navigation