Spatial and velocity tuning of processes underlying induced motion

The induced motion effect is a high-level visual phenomenon: Psychophysical evidence

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a target away from the direction of motion of the unattended background. If it is a result of assigning background motion to self-motion and judging target motion relative to the scene as suggested by the flow parsing hypothesis then the effect must be mediated in higher levels of the visual motion pathway where self-motion is assessed. We provide evidence for a high-level mechanism in two broad ways. Firstly, we show that the effect is insensitive to a set of low-level spatial aspects of the scene, namely, the spatial arrangement, the spatial frequency content and the orientation content of the background relative to the target. Secondly, we show that the effect is the same whether the target and background are composed of the same kind of local elements-one-dimensional (1D) or two-dimensional (2D)-or one is composed of one, and the other composed of the other. The latter finding is significant because 1D and 2D local elements are integrated by two different mechanisms so the induced motion effect is likely to be mediated in a visual motion processing area that follows the two separate integration mechanisms. Area medial superior temporal in monkeys and the equivalent in humans is suggested as a viable site. We present a simple flow-parsing-inspired model and demonstrate a good fit to our data and to data from a previous induced motion study.

Studies of the angular function of a Duncker-type induced motion illusion

Duncker (1929/1955, Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, pp 161-172) demonstrated a laboratory version of induced motion. He showed that, when a stationary spot of light in a dark laboratory is enclosed in an oscillating rectangular frame, the frame is perceived as stationary and the dot appears to move in the direction opposite the true motion of the frame. Zivotofsky (2004, Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 45 2867-2872) studied a more complex variant of the Duncker illusion, in which both the inducing and the test stimuli moved: a single red test dot moved horizontally left or right while a dense background set of black dots on a white background moved vertically up or down. When the background inducing dots moved up (down), the truly horizontally translating test dot appeared to drift at an angle down (up) from the horizontal. In experiment 1, we used two methods to measure the complete angular function of the Zivotofsky effect and found it to peak with an inducer-test direction separation of approximately 30 degrees, similar to the inducing angle that has been found to maximise other direction illusions. Experiment 2 tested and confirmed predictions regarding the effects of relative test and inducer speeds based on the vectorial subtraction of the inducing velocity from the test velocity.

Investigation of center-surround interaction in motion with reaction time for direction discrimination

How motion onset asynchrony (MOA) alters the effects of stimulus size on reaction time (RT) for direction discrimination of a drifting grating was examined. MOA is a delay from the stimulus onset to the onset of motion. Without MOA, RTs were found to increase as the stimulus size was increased at high contrast, but decrease with it at low contrast or at high noise levels. With MOA, however, RTs did not increase as the stimulus size increased even at high contrast. These results suggest that sudden stimulus onset evokes the increase of RTs with the increase of stimulus size at high contrast. RTs for direction discrimination of a drifting Gabor patch (the target) surrounded by a different drifting or a static grating as well as RTs for the target that was not surrounded by an additional grating were measured. The RTs for the target moving in the same or opposite direction as the motion of the surrounding grating were larger than those for the target with the static grating or no additional grating at moderate or high contrast. There was no significant difference between the RTs for the target moving in the same direction as the surrounding grating and the RTs for the target moving in the opposite direction. At low contrast and without MOA, however, the RTs for the target moving in the same direction as the surrounding grating were larger than those for the target moving in the opposite direction. These results suggest surround suppression at low contrast under some conditions. They also suggest that the decrease of RTs for discriminating motion direction of a drifting single Gabor patch with the increase of stimulus size at low contrast does not necessarily mean the absence of surround suppression.

Differential effect of luminance contrast reduction and noise on motion induction

Motion perception in a region is affected by motion in the surround regions. When a physically static or flickering stimulus surrounded by moving stimuli appears to move in the direction opposite to that of the surround motion, it is referred to as motion contrast. When the centre appears to move in the same direction, it is referred to as motion assimilation. We investigated how noise and luminance contrast affect motion induction by employing static and dynamic counterphase flickering targets. The tendency of motion assimilation was found to be stronger at a high noise level than at a low noise level for both static and dynamic targets. On the other hand, a decrease of luminance contrast tended to strengthen the tendency of motion contrast. However, the addition of noise and the decrease of luminance contrast decreased the visibility of motion comparably. These results suggest that the visual system changes the mode of motion induction according to the noise level, but not the visibility.

Comparing motion induction in lateral motion and motion in depth

Induced motion, the apparent motion of an object when a nearby object moves, has been shown to occur in a variety of different conditions, including motion in depth. Here we explore whether similar patterns of induced motion result from induction in a lateral direction (frontoparallel motion) or induction in depth. We measured the magnitude of induced motion in a stationary target for: (a) binocularly viewed lateral motion of a pair of inducers, where the angular motion is in the same direction for the two eyes, and (b) binocularly viewed motion in depth of inducers, where the angular motions in the two eyes are opposite to each other, but the same magnitude as for the lateral motion. We found that induced motion is of similar magnitude for the two viewing conditions. This suggests a common mechanism for motion induction by both lateral motion and motion in depth, and is consistent with the idea that the visual signals responsible for induced motion are established before angular information is scaled to obtain metric motion in depth.

Spatiotemporal tuning of rapid interactions between visual-motion analysis and reaching movement

In addition to the goal-directed preplanned control, which strongly governs reaching movements, another type of control mechanism is suggested by recent findings that arm movements are rapidly entrained by surrounding visual motion. It remains, however, controversial whether this rapid manual response is generated in a goal-oriented manner similarly to preplanned control or is reflexively and directly induced by visual motion. To investigate the sensorimotor process underlying rapid manual responses induced by large-field visual motion, we examined the effects of contrast and spatiotemporal frequency of the visual-motion stimulus. The manual response amplitude increased steeply with image contrast up to 10% and leveled off thereafter. Regardless of the spatial frequency, the response amplitude increased almost proportionally to the logarithm of stimulus speed until the temporal frequency reached 15-20 Hz and then fell off. The maximum response was obtained at the lowest spatial frequency we examined (0.05 cycles/degrees). These stimulus specificities are surprisingly similar to those of the reflexive ocular-following response induced by visual motion, although there is no direct motor entrainment from the ocular to manual responses. In addition, the spatiotemporal tuning is clearly different from that of perceptual effects caused by visual motion. These comparisons suggest that the rapid manual response is generated by a reflexive sensorimotor mechanism. This mechanism shares a distinctive visual-motion processing stage with the reflexive control for other motor systems yet is distinct from visual-motion perception.

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.

Induced rotational motion with nonabutting inducing and induced stimuli: implications regarding two forms of induced motion

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a static stimulus in the opposite direction to a moving stimulus. Two types of induced motion have been distinguished: (a) when the moving stimulus is distant from the static stimulus and undergoes overall displacement, and (b) when the moving stimulus is pattern viewed within fixed boundaries that abut the static stimulus. Explanations of the 1st type of induced motion refer to mediating phenomena, such as vection, whereas the 2nd type is attributed to local processing by motion-sensitive neurons. The present research was directed to a display that elicited induced rotational motion with the characteristics of both types of induced motion: the moving stimulus lay within fixed boundaries, but the inducing and induced stimuli were distant from each other. The author investigated the properties that distinguished the two types of induced motion. In 3 experiments, induced motion persisted indefinitely, interocular transfer of the aftereffect of induced motion was limited to about 20%, and the time-course of the aftereffect of induced motion could not be attributed to vection. Those results were consistent with fixed-boundary induced motion. However, they could not be explained by local processing. Instead, the results might reflect the detection of object motion within a complex flow-field that resulted from the observer's motion.

Similarities between visual processing of shear and uniform motion

A number of papers have claimed that at moderate to high contrasts, sensitivity is higher for shear motion than for uniform motion. We show in a 2 x 2AFC task, designed to minimize any potential artefacts due to criterion level or response bias, that sensitivities are essentially equal for shear and uniform motion under general conditions. It has also been claimed that position tracking enhances sensitivity for shear motion. We added moving sinusoidal gratings to stationary sinusoidal gratings of the same spatial frequency and orientation, to create stimuli in which position changes and motion energy have opposite directions, to show that shear and uniform motion are both subserved by motion-energy mechanisms at speeds above 2.0 deg/s and by position tracking at slower speeds.

Detection of relative and uniform motion

We measured the lowest velocity (velocity threshold) for discriminating motion direction in relative and uniform motion stimuli, varying the contrast and the spatial frequency of the stimulus gratings. The results showed significant differences in the effects of contrast and spatial frequency on the threshold, as well as on the absolute threshold level between the two motion conditions, except when the contrast was 1% or lower. Little effect of spatial frequency was found for uniform motion, whereas a bandpass property with a peak at approximately 5 cycles per degree was found for relative motion. It was also found that contrast had little effect on uniform motion, whereas the threshold decreased with increases in contrast up to 85% for relative motion. These differences cannot be attributed to possible differences in eye movements between the relative and the uniform motion conditions, because the spatial-frequency characteristics differed in the two conditions even when the presentation duration was short enough to prevent eye movements. The differences also cannot be attributed to detecting positional changes, because the velocity threshold was not determined by the total distance of the stimulus movements. These results suggest that there are two different motion pathways: one that specializes in relative motion and one that specializes in uniform or global motion. A simulation showed that the difference in the response functions of the two possible pathways accounts for the differences in the spatial-frequency and contrast dependency of the velocity threshold.

Summation between nearby motion signals and facilitative/inhibitory interactions between distant motion signals

To explain the finding that motion assimilation was dominant between nearby motion signals while motion contrast between distant ones, a center-surround antagonistic mechanism was proposed [Nawrot & Sekuler (1990). Vision Research, 30, 1439-1451]. However, motion assimilation occurred not only between nearby signals but also between distant ones, suggesting the existence of a center-surround non-antagonistic mechanism [Ido. Ohtani & Ejima (1997). Vision Research, 37, 1565-1574]. The present study was designed to provide direct evidence for the non-antagonistic mechanism, and to examine further the motion interactions which operate in different spatial scales. The nature of motion interaction between the test and the inducer was examined by varying the size, the number of frames, the frame duration and the inter-frame displacement of random-dot kinematograms. The results were consistent with the notion that there are three types of interactions in human motion processing; one is a summation process effective within nearby regions, and the other two are facilitative and inhibitory induction processes operating over larger spatial scales. Analysis of the results in terms of the Fourier components suggests that the facilitative and the inhibitory induction processes may be sensitive, respectively to the lower and the higher temporal frequency components of the stimulus.

Shift in speed selectivity of visual cortical neurons: a neural basis of perceived motion contrast

The perceived speed of motion in one part of the visual field is influenced by the speed of motion in its surrounding fields. Little is known about the cellular mechanisms causing this phenomenon. Recordings from mammalian visual cortex revealed that speed preference of the cortical cells could be changed by displaying a contrast speed in the field surrounding the cell's classical receptive field. The neuron's selectivity shifted to prefer faster speed if the contextual surround motion was set at a relatively lower speed, and vice versa. These specific center-surround interactions may underlie the perceptual enhancement of speed contrast between adjacent fields.

Global induced motion and visual stability in an optic flow illusion

When an expansion flow field of moving dots is overlapped by planar motion, observers perceive an illusory displacement of the focus of expansion (FOE) in the direction of the planar motion (Duffy and Wurtz, Vision Research, 1993;33:1481-1490). The illusion may be a consequence of induced motion, wherein an induced component of motion relative to planar dots is added to the motions of expansion dots to produce the FOE shift. While such a process could be mediated by local 'center-surround' receptive fields, the effect could also be due to a higher level process which detects and subtracts large-field planar motion from the flow field. We probed the mechanisms underlying this illusion by adding varying amounts of rotation to the expansion stimulus, and by varying the speed and size of the planar motion field. The introduction of rotation into the stimulus produces an illusory shift in a direction perpendicular to the planar motion. Larger FOE shifts were perceived for greater speeds and sizes of planar motion fields, although the speed effect saturated at high speeds. While the illusion appears to share a common mechanism with center-surround induced motion, our results also point to involvement of a more global mechanism that subtracts coherent planar motion from the flow field. Such a process might help to maintain visual stability during eye movements.

Dependencies of motion assimilation and motion contrast on spatial properties of stimuli: spatial-frequency nonselective and selective interactions between local motion detectors

Two sets of experiments were carried out to examine dependencies of two types of induced motion (motion assimilation and motion contrast) on spatial properties of stimuli in terms of spatial-frequency tuning of local motion detectors. In the first set, the magnitudes of motion assimilation and motion contrast for a sinusoidal grating were measured at a function of the spatial frequency of the inducing gratings, with the spatial frequency of the test grating as a parameter. In the second set, the magnitudes were measured as a function of the height of the inducing gratings with the spatial frequencies of the test and the inducing gratings as parameters. For motion assimilation, the magnitude was characterized by a low-pass function of the spatial frequency of the inducing gratings, and the critical height of the inducing gratings, which demarcates the extent of the spatial pooling, varied systematically depending on the spatial frequency of the inducing gratings. For motion contrast, on the other hand, the magnitude was characterized by a hand-pass function, and the critical height depended on the frequency of the test grating. These results suggest that motion assimilation is mediated by the spatial-frequency nonselective interaction between the local detectors, in which the motion signals of the detectors tuned to different spatial frequencies are integrated with each other. Motion contrast is mediated by the spatial-frequency selective interaction, in which the motion signals of the local detectors tuned to the same or similar spatial frequencies are compared and differentiated.

Simultaneous motion contrast across space: involvement of second-order motion?

A static or counterphase (target) grating surrounded by drifting (inducer) gratings is perceived to move in the direction opposite that of the inducers. We compared the relative magnitudes of these simultaneous motion contrasts generated by both first-order and second-order stimuli. The first-order stimuli were sinusoidal luminance-modulations of a uniform field, and the second-order stimuli were sinusoidal contrast-modulations of a random-dot field. When the target was a static grating, the second-order stimuli induced little motion contrast, while the first-order stimuli of the same effective contrast produced clear motion contrast. When the target was a counterphase grating, both first- and second-order stimuli produced clear motion contrast. These results are discussed in relation to the involvement of second-order motion pathways in the relative-motion processing, and the two types of motion aftereffects obtained with static and dynamic test stimuli.

Effects of luminance contrast and phase difference on motion assimilation for sinusoidal gratings

When a sinusoidal (test) grating is displaced horizontally by a phase angle of 180 deg in a two-frame apparent motion display, the perceived direction of motion is ambiguous; the test grating appears to move either to the left or to the right (or to both directions). On the other hand, when the test grating is displaced by 180 deg synchronously with the inducing gratings which, presented above and below the test grating, jump unambiguously in one direction (e.g. displaced by 90 deg), the test grating always appears to move in the same direction as the inducing gratings (motion assimilation). In the present study, the effects of luminance contrast and phase difference on motion assimilation were examined. The proportion of perceived direction of motion (left or right) was measured as a function of phase difference between the test grating in the first and the second frame. The magnitude of motion assimilation was evaluated as the change in the phase difference for which the proportions of observers' response were equal (50%) for both directions. The magnitude of motion assimilation increased with increase in the contrast of the inducing gratings or with decrease in the contrast of the test grating. Also, the magnitude increased as the phase difference of the inducing gratings departed from 180 deg. Based on these results, a quantitative formulation between the magnitude of motion assimilation, and the contrast and the phase difference of the stimulus gratings was derived. Further, a model was proposed which explains the stimulus dependences of motion assimilation in terms of response-integration among local motion detectors.

Apparent motion produced by temporally modulated brightness contrast and assimilation

When regions containing a counterphasing sine-wave grating are presented side by side and in spatial and temporal quadrature phase, a transparent perception of motion results. This occurs even though none of the stimulus parts is moving. The two percepts of motion in these displays are in opposite directions, one analogous to brightness contrast, the other to brightness assimilation. If the regions are separated by a gap, the contrast and assimilation motions remain visible for separations up to 0.5 and 1 period, respectively. Both motions occur at temporal frequencies from 1 to 16 Hz. The perceived motion analogous to brightness assimilation is easily modeled with elongated receptive fields that integrate flux along the long axis, such as simple cells. The perceived motion analogous to brightness contrast can be accounted for by receptive fields that subtract the flux in one region from the flux in another region. Examples are center-surround subunits such as are found in the elaborated Reichart model [W. Reichardt, in Sensory Communication, W. A. Rosenblith, ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pp. 303-317; J. P. H. van Santen and G. Sperling, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2, 300-321 (1985)]. The dual perceived motion suggests that more than one kind of motion channel (distinguished by the two-dimensional receptive field of the front-end filter) is present in the human visual system.

Monocular and dichoptic interactions between moving and stationary stimuli

Visual motion of a physically stationary stimulus can be induced by the movement of adjacent stimuli. The frequencies of motion reports and the angular separations required to induce motion were determined for a number of stimulus configurations. A stationary stimulus was fixated in the centre of the display and the point at which induced motion was initially reported was measured. In the first experiment either one or two stationary stimuli were presented in the centre of a display and either one or two similar stimuli moved horizontally towards them. The percentage of trials on which motion was induced varied with the display configuration, being greatest with two moving and one stationary stimuli. The angular separations at which motion was reported were about 2 deg for all conditions. In the second experiment the binocular interaction of such induced motion was examined. A single static fixation stimulus was presented binocularly and a range of monocular or dichoptic conditions was examined: a single moving stimulus to one eye, two moving stimuli to one eye, or two moving stimuli dichoptically. Induced motion was reported on about 90% of the trials for the monocular and dichoptic conditions with two moving stimuli. Motion was first induced at similar angular separations by two moving stimuli, whether presented monocularly or dichoptically. Binocular interaction was further examined with a display that induced motion in the stimulus presented to one eye but not in that presented to the other: this resulted in the apparent motion in depth of the binocularly fixated stimulus.

Induced motion of a fixated target: influence of voluntary eye deviation

Induced motion (IM) was observed in a fixated target in the direction opposite to the real motion of a moving background. Relative to a fixation target located straight ahead, IM decreased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees in the same direction as background motion and increased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees opposite background motion. These results are consistent with a "nystagmus-suppression" hypothesis for subjective motion of fixated targets: the magnitude of illusory motion is correlated with the amount of voluntary efference required to oppose involuntary eye movements that would occur in the absence of fixation. In addition to the form of IM studied, this explanation applies to autokinesis, apparent concomitant motion, and the oculogyral illusion. Accounts of IM that stress visual capture of vection, afferent mechanisms, egocenter deviations, or phenomenological principles, although they may explain some forms of IM, do not account for the present results.

Does intermittence in induced rotary movement have any explanatory significance?

Induced rotary movement has been reported to start and stop repeatedly during 1 min of observation. This has been taken as evidence for the involvement either of cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus or of roll vection. Both assertions are dubious. Regarding cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus, available evidence shows that it is too weak to be important in induced rotary movement. Also, induced rotary movement and cyclorotational optokinetic nystagmus are affected differently by the velocity of eliciting stimulation. Regarding roll vection, the conditions for its intermittence do not match those for induced rotary movement. Also, although aftereffects for induced rotary movement are negative, those for roll vection are positive and negative. Intermittence in induced rotary movement may be parsimoniously explained as characteristic of a weak effect.

On the salience of the inducer's displacement in induced rotary movement

It has been reported that an annulus patterned with two equally-spaced radial lines elicits slower induced rotary movement than an annulus patterned with sixteen equally-spaced radial lines. This has been attributed to the quantity of inducing stimulation. However, the number of pattern elements also affects the time course of induced rotary movement: it can be intermittent with two-radii inducers, but persistent with sixteen-radii inducers. Displacement of a two-radii inducer may be more salient to the subject than displacement of a sixteen-radii inducer: from time to time the displacement of the former may come to dominate perception, suppressing induced movement. Hypotheses invoking quantity of stimulation and salience of inducer displacement were tested by way of inducers with different numbers and spacings of pattern elements. Subjects timed induced rotary movement (experiment 1) and a subsequent aftereffect (experiment 2). The results were consistent with both the quantity of stimulation (experiments 1 and 2) and the salience of inducer displacement (experiment 2) having an effect. This suggests that at least two mechanisms may be involved in induced rotary movement.

Induced rotary motion and ocular torsion

When a large patterned annulus rotates around a stationary sectored disc the latter appears to rotate in the opposite direction. Such induced rotary motion was examined with central discs subtending 5, 20 and 40 deg at the eye, with the surround filling the remainder of the visual field. The annular surround or the central disc could be oscillated sinusoidally around the fixation point through 20 deg at 0.2 Hz. In each case, subjects estimated the angles through which the moving and stationary parts of the display appeared to rotate on one half-cycle. Subjects also estimated the angle of rotation of an oscillating display that filled the visual field. Induced rotation of the centre was around 100% of the inducing amplitude for all disc sizes, but there was no induced motion of the surround when the centre rotated. Ocular torsion was measured under the same conditions, using the scleral search-coil technique. The amplitude of ocular torsion was a function of the size of the stationary or rotating field. Thus, variations in stimulus conditions affected induced rotary motion and ocular torsion in different ways. The implications of the results for theories of induced motion in terms of underregistered eye movements are discussed.

The effect of local luminance contrast on induced motion

Recently it has been suggested that the magnocellular, as opposed to the parvocellular, subsystem of the primary visual pathway of primates subserves motion perception. This suggestion is partly based on the observation that both the visual responses of magnocellular neural units and certain motion perception phenomena have high contrast sensitivity and are only dependent on luminance contrast for a narrow range of low contrasts. Parvocellular units have low contrast sensitivity and are dependent on contrast for a wide range of values. In the present experiment, the effect of local luminance contrast on induced motion was measured using a nulling procedure to quantify the magnitude, of illusory motion perceived in a centre grating which was viewed against a moving surround grafting. Centre grating contrast was either matched to the surround or maintained at a low (2.5%) or high (60%) value. Surround contrast ranged from 2.5% to 60%. It was found that (1) centre contrast had no observable effect on the magnitude of the illusion, (2) induced motion was marginal or absent with low contrast but detectable surrounds, and (3) induced motion increased as contrast in the surround increased for the range of contrasts tested. This contrast response function is more similar to that of parvocellular than magnocellular units and therefore suggests that the parvocellular stream may play a role in some aspects of motion processing.

Induced motion and optokinetic afternystagmus: parallel response dynamics with prolonged stimulation

Fixation of a stationary target during motion of background contours attenuates optokinetic nystagmus (OKN), while illusory induced motion (IM) of the fixated target occurs opposite the direction of contour motion. It is proposed that IM owes to a perceptually registered efferent signal for ocular pursuit which opposes an unregistered signal for OKN to achieve stable fixation. This proposal predicts parallel changes in the magnitudes of IM and optokinetic reflexes during and after optokinetic stimulation. Accordingly, leftward IM magnitude and rightward slow-phase velocity of optokinetic afternystagmus (OKAN) increased at similar rates across 90 and 160 sec of 60 deg/sec motion of background contours, and decayed at similar rates after stimulus termination. Both responses decayed more deeply following stimulation with, rather than without fixation. Neither retinal image motion nor vection can explain the IM obtained.

The representation of nonuniform motion: induced movement

Induced motion occurs when there is a misallocation of nonuniform motion. Theories of induced motion are reviewed with respect to the model for uniform motion recently proposed by Swanston, Wade, and Day. Theories based on single processes operating at one of the retinocentric, orbitocentric, egocentric, or geocentric levels are not able to account for all aspects of the phenomenon. It is therefore suggested that induced motion is a consequence of combining two different types of motion signals: one provides information by registering the motion with respect to the retina, orbit, and egocentre; the other provides information only on the relational motions between the pattern elements. Simple rules are given for defining a frame of reference for the relational motion process, which can result in a reallocation of the motion signals. It is proposed that the two signals in combination are weighted differentially, with the greater influence coming from the relational signals. Procedures for determining the weighting factors are described, and predictions from the model are examined.

The effect of orientation and motion of enclosed texture on induced movement

Optical expansion or contraction of a vertical grating induces rotation of an oblique line or bar superimposed upon it. Three experiments are reported in which the oblique (45 deg clockwise) bar was defined by parallel line segments that were varied in orientation and motion. In Experiment 1 subjects estimated the degrees through which the boundaries of the bar appeared to rotate during 2 sec expansion of the vertical grating background. The induced rotation declined with increasing relative orientation between the texture elements and the background; virtually no effect was reported when they were orthogonal. The texture elements were stationary in Experiment 1 whereas they expanded or contracted in Experiment 2: when their motion was in-phase with the background induced rotation of the boundary occurred irrespective of relative orientation. Expansion or contraction of the texture elements alone did not result in induced bar rotation (Experiment 3). It was concluded that induced movement at the boundaries between two patterns is reduced when they differ in static orientation and in the directions of motion due to zooming.

Errors in direction-of-motion discrimination with complex stimuli

The direction of apparent motion in a complex pattern comprising a static 1-cycle/degree (c/deg) grating and a moving 3-c/deg grating changes with stimulus duration. At durations longer than about 150 msec, motion is seen almost veridically; the motion of the 3-c/deg grating, which is seen correctly, merely induces in the 1-c/deg grating a weak apparent motion in the opposite direction. At shorter durations, however, the only motion seen is in the opposite direction from that which, in fact, occurs. The reversed apparent motion is both compelling and consistent; it is reported both by naive and by experienced observers, and, although it only occurs for certain ranges of spatial frequency, contrast and duration, the ranges are substantial. The reversal appears to be almost independent of the temporal frequency and the spatial phase of the stimulus; it occurs both for discrete and for continuous motion. It seems likely that the apparent motion with short duration stimuli reveals properties of local visual movement detection previously unknown and difficult to account for within the framework of current models of motion perception.