The dependence of motion repulsion and rivalry on the distance between moving elements

Evidence for strictly monocular processing in visual motion opponency and Glass pattern perception

When presented with locally paired dots moving in opposite directions, motion selective neurons in the middle temporal cortex (MT) reduce firing while neurons in V1 are unaffected. This physiological effect is known as motion opponency. The current study used psychophysics to investigate the neural circuit underlying motion opponency. We asked whether opposing motion signals could arrive from different eyes into the receptive field of a binocular neuron while still maintaining motion opponency. We took advantage of prior findings that orientation discrimination of the motion axis (along which paired dots oscillate) is harder when dots move counter-phase than in-phase, an effect associated with motion opponency. We found that such an effect disappeared when paired dots originated from different eyes. This suggests that motion opponency, at some point, involves strictly monocular processing. This does not mean that motion opponency is entirely monocular. Further, we found that the effect of a Glass pattern disappeared under similar viewing conditions, suggesting that Glass pattern perception also involves some strictly monocular processing.

Spatial proximity modulates the strength of motion opponent suppression elicited by locally paired dot displays

Locally paired dot stimuli that contain opposing motion signals at roughly the same spatial locations (counter-phase stimuli) have been reported to produce percepts devoid of global motion. Counter-phase stimuli are also thought to elicit a reduced neural response at motion processing brain area MT/V5, an effect known as motion opponency. The current study examines the effect of vertical counter-phase background motion on behavioral discrimination of horizontal target motion. We found that counter-phase backgrounds generally produced lower behavioral thresholds than locally unbalanced backgrounds, an effect consistent with the idea that counter-phase motion elicits opponency. However, this effect was apparent only if the paired dots were close enough in proximity that they crossed one another during their movement. Furthermore, we found that counter-phase stimuli containing within-pair dot crossing elicits similar behavioral thresholds to non-motion flicker stimuli. These results provide insight into the requirements for activating opponency in the brain and suggest that the brain processes counter-phase and flicker stimuli similarly due to opponency.

Distinct Aging Effects on Motion Repulsion and Surround Suppression in Humans

Elderly exhibit accumulating deficits in visual motion perception, which is critical for humans to interact with their environment. Previous studies have suggested that aging generally reduces neuronal inhibition in the visual system. Here, we investigated how aging affects the local intra-cortical inhibition using a motion direction discrimination task based on the motion repulsion phenomenon. Motion repulsion refers to the phenomenon by which observers overestimate the perceived angle when two superimposed dot patterns are moving at an acute angle. The misperception has been interpreted as local mutual inhibition between nearby direction-tuned neurons within the same cortical area. We found that elderly exhibited much stronger motion repulsion than young adults. We then compared this effect to how aging affects the global inter-cortical inhibition by adopting the surround suppression paradigm previously used by Betts et al. (2005). We found that elderly showed less change in the discrimination threshold when the size of a high-contrast drifting Gabor was increased, indicating reduced surround suppression compared to young adults. Our results indicate that aging may not always lead to a decrease of neuronal inhibition in the visual system. These distinct effects of aging on inhibitory functions might be one of the reasons that elderly people often exhibit deficits of motion perception in a real-world situation.

Adaptation state of the local-motion-pooling units determines the nature of the motion aftereffect to transparent motion

When observers adapt to a transparent-motion stimulus, the resulting motion aftereffect (MAE) is typically in the direction opposite to the vector average of the component directions. It has been proposed that the reason for this is that it is the adaptation state at the local-level (i.e. of the local-motion-pooling units) that determines the nature of the MAE (Vidnyanszky et al. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(4), 157-161). The adapting stimuli used in these experiments typically consisted of random-dot kinematograms, with each dot being able to move over the entire viewing aperture. Here we used spatially-localised global-plaid stimuli which enabled us, over the course of adaptation, to present either one of both motion directions at each local region. A unidirectional MAE was perceived when two motion directions were presented at each location and a transparent MAE was perceived when a single direction was presented. These results support the notion that it is the adaptation state at the local-motion-pooling level that determines the nature of the MAE to transparent motion stimuli.

Both monocular and binocular signals contribute to motion rivalry

There is an ongoing debate on whether binocular rivalry involves competition among monocular cells or binocular cells. We investigated this issue psychophysically with two specially designed test stimuli. One test stimulus contained monocular motion signals but greatly reduced binocular motion signals, while the other contained binocular motion signals but no monocular motion signals. For comparison, we also employed a normal rivalrous control containing both monocular and binocular motion signals, and a non-rivalrous flicker-noise control with neither monocular nor binocular motion signals. We found that binocular rivalry for the two test stimuli was significantly reduced compared with the normal rivalrous control, but not completely eliminated compared with the non-rivalrous control. Therefore, both monocular and binocular motion signals appear to contribute to motion rivalry, suggesting that motion rivalry must involve competition among both monocular and binocular cells.

Motion integration during motion aftereffects

The perceived global motion of a stimulus depends on how its different local motion-direction vectors are distributed in space and time. When they are explicitly co-localized, as in the case of locally paired motion, competitive motion integration mechanisms produce a unitary global motion direction determined by their vector average. During motion aftereffects induced by simultaneous adaptation to multiple motion directions, just as in the case of locally paired motion, different directional signals originate simultaneously from exactly the same position in space. Therefore, the perceived global motion direction during motion aftereffects results from local vector averaging of the co-localized motion-direction signals induced by adaptation.

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.