Nestor Matthews

Task-specific perceptual learning on speed and direction discrimination.

Twenty-two nai;ve undergraduates participated in a psychophysical experiment designed to elucidate the neural events that allow us to see subtle motion differences. Half of the subjects practiced extensively on a direction-discrimination task while the other half practiced extensively on a speed-discrimination task. The stimulus conditions in the two groups were identical. The results indicated that the learning curves for direction discrimination were significantly steeper than those for speed discrimination. Additionally, the significant practice-based improvements on each motion task did not transfer to the other motion task. The different learning rates and the lack of transfer suggest that the neural events mediating speed discrimination are at least partially independent from those mediating direction discrimination, and vice versa, even under identical stimulus conditions.

Axis-of-motion affects direction discrimination, not speed discrimination

The motion of an object can be described by a single velocity vector, or equivalently, by direction and speed separately. Similarly, our ability to see subtle differences in the motion of two objects could be constrained by either a velocity-based sensory response, or separate sensory responses to direction and speed. To distinguish between these possibilities we investigated whether direction discrimination and speed discrimination were differentially affected by changes in the axis-of-motion. Psychophysical data from 12 naive observers indicated that direction discrimination depended on axis-of-motion, but speed discrimination did not. The difference suggests that a velocity-based sensory response is not the limiting factor on the two tasks. Instead, the results imply that the sensory response which constrains speed discrimination is at least partially independent from the sensory response which constrains direction discrimination.

Velocity-dependent improvements in single-dot direction discrimination

Thirty-six Brown University students participated in three experiments designed to address perceptual learning. In each experiment, visual discrimination thresholds were tracked over 4,200 trials. Results from Experiment 1 suggest that the pattern of threshold reduction on a single-dot motion-direction discrimination task was stimulus-direction specific and matched (in a velocity-dependent manner) the threshold reduction pattern previously reported for a line-orientation discrimination task. In Experiment 2, it was determined that the stationary-line-orientation—specific practice effects originally reported by Vogels and Orban (1985) could be replicated but were contingent on line length. Similarly, the results from Experiment 3 suggest that practice effects originally reported by Ball and Sekuler (1987) could be replicated but were contingent on stimulus velocity. Implications for the mechanisms underlying direction and orientation discrimination are considered.

A physiological theory of depth perception from vertical disparity.

It has been known since the time of Helmholtz that vertical differences between the two retinal images can generate depth perception. Although many ecologically and geometrically inspired theories have been proposed, the neural mechanisms underlying the phenomenon remain elusive. Here we propose a new theory for depth perception from vertical disparity based on the oriented binocular receptive fields of visual cortical cells and on the radial bias of the preferred-orientation distribution in the cortex. The theory suggests that oriented cells may treat a vertical disparity as a weaker, equivalent horizontal disparity. It explains the induced effect, and the quadrant and size dependence of vertical disparity. It predicts that horizontal and vertical disparities should locally enhance or cancel each other according to their depth signs, and that the effect of vertical disparity should be orientation dependent. These predictions were confirmed through psychophysical experiments.

Right hemifield deficits in judging simultaneity: a perceptual learning study.

Prior reports demonstrate that simultaneity is judged less precisely in the right visual field (RVF) than in the left visual field (LVF). The present psychophysical study was conducted to provide new information about why and when (i.e., the visual information stage at which) RVF deficits arise in simultaneity judgments. In Experiment 1, participants judged either the simultaneity or the relative spatial frequency of Gabor targets in the right or left hemifield while distractors were randomly absent or present. When attention was not needed to exclude distractors, signal detection theory analyses revealed an RVF simultaneity deficit with an error pattern that implicates low RVF temporal acuity, not excessive RVF neural noise. Adding attentionally demanding distractors introduced a separate, significant RVF simultaneity deficit with error patterns that implicate the inappropriate integration of temporal asynchronies from distractor locations. Neither the distractor-independent RVF acuity deficit nor the distractor-induced RVF excessive spatial integration occurred for spatial frequency discrimination at the same retinal locations. In Experiment 2, a perceptual learning procedure significantly improved RVF simultaneity judgments. The learning was task-specific but generalized to the untrained (left) visual field and to novel retinal locations. This observation implicates the simultaneity decision as the visual information stage that sets the limit on performance.

Bilateral attentional advantage on elementary visual tasks

We examined interactions between and within the left and right visual hemifields using elementary visual tasks. Each trial required identifying a letter at fixation and then either discriminating the orientation of (experiment 1) or detecting (experiment 2) peripheral Gabor targets. On half the trials Gabor distracters were presented between the Gabor targets, and were either restricted to one lateral hemifield (unilateral condition) or presented across the left and right hemifields (bilateral condition). Orientation discrimination and detection each exhibited bilateral superiority only when distracters were present. The results confirm bilateral superiority in attentional selection, even on these most elementary visual tasks.

Motion rivalry impairs motion repulsion

In their classic study on motion repulsion, Marshak and Sekuler (Science 205 (1979) 1399) reported a repulsion of up to 10 degrees when two different directions of motion were presented dichoptically. However, subjects in that study did not experience binocular rivalry, presumably because of the brief presentation time. In the present study, we measured repulsion during binocular rivalry by requiring subjects to dichoptically view the stimuli until one direction of motion appeared to exclusively dominate the other (Blake, Yu, Lokey, & Norman (1998). J. Cogn. Neurosci., 10, 46-60). We found that motion repulsion was significantly reduced during exclusive dominance. Indeed, after controlling for reference repulsion--the misjudgment of a single direction of motion (Rauber & Treue (1998). Perception, 27, 393-402)--we found no significant motion repulsion during exclusive dominance. These data suggest that motion repulsion may require the perception, rather than merely the physical presence, of multiple directions.

Effects of attention on motion repulsion

Motion repulsion involves interaction between two directions of motion. Since attention is known to bias interactions among different stimuli, we investigated the effect of attentional tasks on motion repulsion. We used two overlapping sets of random dots moving in different directions. When subjects had to detect a small speed-change or luminance change for dots along one direction, the repulsive influence from the other direction was significantly reduced compared with the control case without attentional tasks. However, when the speed-change could occur to either direction such that subjects had to attend both directions to detect the change, motion repulsion was not different from the control. A further experiment showed that decreasing the difficulty of the attentional task resulted in the disappearance of the attentional effect in the case of attention to one direction. Finally, over a wide range of contrasts for the unattended direction, attention reduced repulsion measured with the attended direction. These results are consistent with the physiological finding that strong attention to one direction of motion reduces inhibitory effects from the other direction.

The effect of orientation learning on contrast sensitivity

Regan and Beverley [Regan, D., & Beverley, K. I. (1985). Postadaptation orientation discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 2(2), 147-155] previously demonstrated that adapting to an oriented visual stimulus improves sensitivity to subtle orientation differences while impairing contrast sensitivity. Here, we investigated whether practice-based improvements in orientation sensitivity would, like adaptation, impair contrast sensitivity. To the contrary, we found that contrast sensitivity actually improved significantly after observers demonstrated practice-based increases in orientation sensitivity. Therefore, while orientation sensitivity can be enhanced either by orientation-discrimination training or by adapting to visual stimuli, these two procedures have opposite effects on contrast sensitivity. This difference suggests that adaptation and perceptual learning on orientation discrimination cannot be explained sufficiently by a shared underlying cause, such as a reduction in neural activity.

The Effect of Inducer Polarity and Contrast on the Perception of Illusory Figures

A study designed to determine how inducer–surround contrast and inducer polarity affect the contour clarity and the lightness of illusory figures is reported. Using magnitude estimation procedures, ten naive subjects rated both the contour clarity and the lightness of Kanizsa squares. The magnitude of the inducer–surround contrast and the inducer polarity (all-black, all-white, or black-and-white) were varied randomly on each trial. The data indicate that contour clarity increases with contrast at the same rate across polarity conditions but that contour clarity at any given contrast level depends significantly on polarity. Contour clarity judgments were significantly lower when the inducers were all-white than when the inducers were all-black or black-and-white, and significantly greater in the ‘mixed’ polarity case (black-and-white inducers) than in the ‘same’ polarity case (the average of the all-black and all-white inducer conditions). Inducer contrast and polarity significantly affected the lightness of the illusory figure in a manner consistent with simultaneous spatial contrast. Also, for a given increment in contrast, contour clarity altered significantly more than surface lightness, regardless of inducer polarity. The findings suggest that the mechanism which mediates boundary formation is sensitive to the direction of contrast, and that the boundary formation mechanism is more sensitive than the surface lightness mechanism to changes in contrast magnitude. The results are considered within the context of neural network models of form perception.