Is the direction of second-order, contrast-defined motion patterns visible to standard motion-energy detectors: a model answer?

Orientation-cue invariant population responses to contrast-modulated and phase-reversed contour stimuli in macaque V1 and V2

Visual scenes can be readily decomposed into a variety of oriented components, the processing of which is vital for object segregation and recognition. In primate V1 and V2, most neurons have small spatio-temporal receptive fields responding selectively to oriented luminance contours (first order), while only a subgroup of neurons signal non-luminance defined contours (second order). So how is the orientation of second-order contours represented at the population level in macaque V1 and V2? Here we compared the population responses in macaque V1 and V2 to two types of second-order contour stimuli generated either by modulation of contrast or phase reversal with those to first-order contour stimuli. Using intrinsic signal optical imaging, we found that the orientation of second-order contour stimuli was represented invariantly in the orientation columns of both macaque V1 and V2. A physiologically constrained spatio-temporal energy model of V1 and V2 neuronal populations could reproduce all the recorded population responses. These findings suggest that, at the population level, the primate early visual system processes the orientation of second-order contours initially through a linear spatio-temporal filter mechanism. Our results of population responses to different second-order contour stimuli support the idea that the orientation maps in primate V1 and V2 can be described as a spatial-temporal energy map.

The detection of the motion of contrast modulation: a parametric study

Despite a long and productive history as a focus of research interest, the details of how humans detect motion in an image remain controversial. This debate has not been helped by the lack of a clear parametric description of motion discrimination for some of the more simple visual stimuli employed in the literature to date. With this in mind, in the present work, we examined a peculiarity observed in the perception of the motion of second-order (contrast-modulated) stimuli: Under certain stimulus conditions, there is a reversal in the perceived direction of motion of the pattern. The aim was to quantify this phenomenon, relate the reversal to forward (veridical) and ambiguous motion, and place the behavioral data in the context of the window of visibility model of spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity. The direction of motion of contrast-modulated patterns was measured as a function of temporal frequency and carrier contrast, under different critical stimulus conditions. The stimulus properties manipulated were spatial frequency, spatial-phase relationship of carrier and sidebands, color, duration, and, most critically, the retinal location of the stimulus. On a purely empirical basis, the data reconciled several conflicts in the recent literature. From a theoretical standpoint, the data were well explained by the window of visibility approach in the majority of conditions and were partially explained in the remaining conditions. The results raise some interesting questions about underlying motion detection mechanisms and the assumptions embodied in our approach to motion modeling and the visual system in general. Supplemental materials for this article may be downloaded from app.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.

Eye Movements in Response to Dichoptic Motion: Evidence for a Parallel-Hierarchical Structure of Visual Motion Processing in Primates

Brief movements of a large-field visual stimulus elicit short-latency tracking eye movements termed “ocular following responses” (OFRs). To address the question of whether OFRs can be elicited by purely binocular motion signals in the absence of monocular motion cues, we measured OFRs from monkeys using dichoptic motion stimuli, the monocular inputs of which were flickering gratings in spatiotemporal quadrature, and compared them with OFRs to standard motion stimuli including monocular motion cues. Dichoptic motion did elicit OFRs, although with longer latencies and smaller amplitudes. In contrast to these findings, we observed that other types of motion stimuli categorized as non-first-order motion, which is undetectable by detectors for standard luminance-defined (first-order) motion, did not elicit OFRs, although they did evoke the sensation of motion. These results indicate that OFRs can be driven solely by cortical visual motion processing after binocular integration, which is distinct from the process incorporating non-first-order motion for elaborated motion perception. To explore the nature of dichoptic motion processing in terms of interaction with monocular motion processing, we further recorded OFRs from both humans and monkeys using our novel motion stimuli, the monocular and dichoptic motion signals of which move in opposite directions with a variable motion intensity ratio. We found that monocular and dichoptic motion signals are processed in parallel to elicit OFRs, rather than suppressing each other in a winner-take-all fashion, and the results were consistent across the species.