Alexander H. Wertheim

Motion perception during selfmotion: The direct versus inferential controversy revisited

According to the traditional inferential theory of perception, percepts of object motion or stationarity stem from an evaluation of afferent retinal signals (which encode image motion) with the help of extraretinal signals (which encode eye movements). According to direct perception theory, on the other hand, the percepts derive from retinally conveyed information only. Neither view is compatible with a perceptual phenomenon that occurs during visually induced sensations of ego motion (vection). A modified version of inferential theory yields a model in which the concept of extraretinal signals is replaced by that of reference signals, which do not encode how the eyes move in their orbits but how they move in space. Hence reference signals are produced not only during eye movements but also during ego motion (i.e., in response to vestibular stimulation and to retinal image flow, which may induce vection). The present theory describes the interface between self-motion and object-motion percepts. An experimental paradigm that allows quantitative measurement of the magnitude and gain of reference signals and the size of the just noticeable difference (JND) between retinal and reference signals reveals that the distinction between direct and inferential theories largely depends on: (1) a mistaken belief that perceptual veridicality is evidence that extraretinal information is not involved, and (2) a failure to distinguish between (the perception of) absolute object motion in space and relative motion of objects with respect to each other. The model corrects these errors, and provides a new, unified framework for interpreting many phenomena in the field of motion perception.

Retinal and Extraretinal Information in Movement Perception: How to Invert the Filehne Illusion

During a pursuit eye movement made in darkness across a small stationary stimulus, the stimulus is perceived as moving in the opposite direction to the eyes. This so-called Filehne illusion is usually explained by assuming that during pursuit eye movements the extraretinal signal (which informs the visual system about eye velocity so that retinal image motion can be interpreted) falls short. A study is reported in which the concept of an extraretinal signal is replaced by the concept of a reference signal, which serves to inform the visual system about the velocity of the retinae in space. Reference signals are evoked in response to eye movements, but also in response to any stimulation that may yield a sensation of self-motion, because during self-motion the retinae also move in space. Optokinetic stimulation should therefore affect reference signal size. To test this prediction the Filehne illusion was investigated with stimuli of different optokinetic potentials. As predicted, with briefly presented stimuli (no optokinetic potential) the usual illusion always occurred. With longer stimulus presentation times the magnitude of the illusion was reduced when the spatial frequency of the stimulus was reduced (increased optokinetic potential). At very low spatial frequencies (strongest optokinetic potential) the illusion was inverted. The significance of the conclusion, that reference signal size increases with increasing optokinetic stimulus potential, is discussed. It appears to explain many visual illusions, such as the movement aftereffect and center–surround induced motion, and it may bridge the gap between direct Gibsonian and indirect inferential theories of motion perception.

Working in a moving environment

The present paper provides a review of research and theories concerning the question of how and why working in a moving environment may affect performance. It is argued that performance decrements can be expected to occur as a result of general factors or as a result of specific impairments of particular human skills. General effects happen when environmental motion, simulated or real, reduces motivation (due to motion sickness), increases fatigue (due to increased energy requirements), or creates balance problems. Specific effects of moving environments on task performance may only be expected through biomechanical influences on particular skills such as perception (interference with oculomotor control) or motor skills (such as manual tracking). There is no evidence for direct effects of motion on performance in purely cognitive tasks.

The perception of object motion during smooth pursuit eye movements: adjacency is not a factor contributing to the Filehne illusion.

During smooth pursuit eye movement performance often an illusory motion of background objects is perceived. This so called Filehne illusion has been quantified and explored by Mack and Herman [Q. J.exp. Psychol. 25, 71-84 (1973); Vision Res. 18, 55-62 (1978)]. According to them two independent factors contribute to the Filehne illusion: (1) a subject relative factor, viz. the underregistration of pursuit eye movements by the perceptual system, and (2) an object relative factor, viz. adjacency of the pursued fixation point and the background stimulus. The evidence of the present experiment supports the former but rejects the latter as a contributing factor. Instead of the concept of adjacency, an alternative theoretical extension of the subject relative factor is offered.

High thresholds for movement perception in schizophrenia may indicate abnormal extraneous noise levels of central vestibular activity

A theoretical argument proposes that thresholds for visual perception of movement should be abnormally high in schizophrenia. This may reflect a central vestibular dysfunction, consisting of abnormally high levels of extraneous noise within the neural activity of the central vestibulo-cerebellar complex. Two experiments are reported with results that support the hypothesis. To some extent, the disorder may explain the smooth pursuit eye movement dysfunction in schizophrenia. Relations to the dopamine hypothesis in schizophrenia are discussed.

ON THE RELATIVITY OF PERCEIVED MOTION

Perceived stability of the visual world during eye movements is traditionally explained as due to the presence of extraretinal signals, equal in magnitude to retinal signals. Motion is perceived when the two signals differ. An experiment is reported in which motion thresholds were measured during smooth pursuit eye movements. The results show that the traditional view is incomplete. Motion is only perceived when the two signals differ by at least a just noticeable difference (JND), the magnitude of which depends on ocular velocity and is independent of the direction of stimulus motion relative to the eyes. The data lead to the rejection of theories according to which ocular velocity is under-represented in extraretinal signals. In addition they show that retinal image motion carries no information about stimulus motion. Perceived motion, direction and velocity are relative concepts. They depend on the JND and therefore they are relative to extraretinal signals. This principle explains the Filehne illusion and even predicts the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon. A similar analysis can be applied to understand vestibular effects on motion perception.

An Acceleration Illusion Caused by Underestimation of Stimulus Velocity during Pursuit Eye Movements: Aubert–Fleischl Revisited

When the eyes pursue a fixation point that sweeps across a moving background pattern, and the fixation point is suddenly made to stop, the ongoing motion of the background pattern seems to accelerate to a higher velocity. Experiment I showed that this acceleration illusion is not caused by the sudden change in (i) the relative velocity between background and fixation point, (ii) the velocity of the retinal image of the background pattern, or (iii) the motion of the retinal image of the rims of the CRT screen on which the experiment was carried out. In experiment II the magnitude of the illusion was quantified. It is strongest when background and eyes move in the same direction. When they move in opposite directions it becomes less pronounced (and may disappear) with higher background velocities. The findings are explained in terms of a model proposed by the first author, in which the perception of object motion and velocity derives from the interaction between retinal slip velocity information and the brains ‘estimate’ of eye velocity in space. They illustrate that the classic Aubert–Fleischl phenomenon (a stimulus seems to be moving slower when pursued with the eyes than when moving in front of stationary eyes) is a special case of a more general phenomenon: whenever we make a pursuit eye movement we underestimate the velocity of all stimuli in our visual field which happen to move in the same direction as our eyes, or which move slowly in the direction opposite to our eyes.

Angular Velocity, Not Temporal Frequency Determines Circular Vection

This paper shows that the experienced speed of circular vection depends on stimulus speed, not on stimulus temporal frequency. But why would anyone think the contrary? The point is that many modelers in the field of motion perception believe that perceived speed is determined by temporal frequency. Moreover, the optokinetic behaviour of the fly is said to be dependent on the temporal frequency, not the speed, of the stimulus pattern (Reichardt, 1987). It was the aim of the present experiment to test the notion that the experienced speed of circular vection is proportional to stimulus velocity information, which is carried by the temporal and the spatial characteristics of light.

Cognitive suppression of tilt sensations during linear horizontal self-motion in the dark.

On the basis of models of otolith functioning, one would expect that, during sinusoidal linear self-motion in darkness, percepts of body tilt are experienced. However, this is normally not the case, which suggests that the otoliths are not responsive to small deviations from the vertical of the gravito-inertial force vector acting on them. Here we show that this is incorrect. Subjects usually know on what kind of linear motion device they are (going to be) moved, having seen it prior to experimentation. This may result in a cognitive suppression of such otolith responses. In the present study, subjects were kept completely unaware of how they were moved and were asked to report on how they thought they moved. About 50% of the reports included tilt percepts almost immediately. It is concluded that this reveals the presence of otolith responsiveness to even small and short-lived deviations of the gravito-inertial force vector from verticality, a responsiveness which is suppressed when (prior) cognitions exist that the motion path is purely in the horizontal plane.

The relation between physical stimulus properties and the effect of foreperiod duration on reaction time

Seven subjects were used in an experiment on the relation between signal modality and the effect of foreperiod duration (EP) on RT. With visual signals the usually reported systematic increase of RT as a function of FP duration (1, 5 and 15 s) was confirmed; with auditory signals no difference was found between FPs of 1 and 5 s while the effect at 15 s was equivalent to that found at 5 s with the visual signal. The results suggest that besides factors such as time uncertainty the FP effect is also largely dependent on the arousing quality of the signal.