Invisible noise obscures visible signal in insect motion detection

Second-order cues to figure motion enable object detection during prey capture by praying mantises

Detecting motion is essential for animals to perform a wide variety of functions. In order to do so, animals could exploit motion cues, including both first-order cues-such as luminance correlation over time-and second-order cues, by correlating higher-order visual statistics. Since first-order motion cues are typically sufficient for motion detection, it is unclear why sensitivity to second-order motion has evolved in animals, including insects. Here, we investigate the role of second-order motion in prey capture by praying mantises. We show that prey detection uses second-order motion cues to detect figure motion. We further present a model of prey detection based on second-order motion sensitivity, resulting from a layer of position detectors feeding into a second layer of elementary-motion detectors. Mantis stereopsis, in contrast, does not require figure motion and is explained by a simpler model that uses only the first layer in both eyes. Second-order motion cues thus enable prey motion to be detected, even when perfectly matching the average background luminance and independent of the elementary motion of any parts of the prey. Subsequent to prey detection, processes such as stereopsis could work to determine the distance to the prey. We thus demonstrate how second-order motion mechanisms enable ecologically relevant behavior such as detecting camouflaged targets for other visual functions including stereopsis and target tracking.

Apparent Motion Perception in the Praying Mantis: Psychophysics and Modelling

Simple Summary

Computer monitors, smart phone screens, and other forms of digital displays present a series of still images (frames) in which objects are displaced in small steps, tricking us into perceiving smooth motion. This illusion is referred to as “apparent motion”. For motion to be perceived, the magnitude of each displacement step must be smaller than a certain limit, referred to as Dmax. Previous studies have investigated the relationship between this limit and object size in humans and found that the maximum displacement is larger for larger objects than for smaller ones. In this work, we investigated the same relationship in the praying mantis Sphodromantis lineola by presenting them with moving random chequerboard patterns on a computer monitor. Even though motion perception in humans and insects are believed to be explained equally well by the same underlying model, we found that Dmax scales differently with object size in mantids. These results suggest that there may be qualitative differences in how mantids perceive apparent motion compared to humans.

Abstract

Apparent motion is the perception of motion created by rapidly presenting still frames in which objects are displaced in space. Observers can reliably discriminate the direction of apparent motion when inter-frame object displacement is below a certain limit, Dmax. Earlier studies of motion perception in humans found that Dmax is lower-bounded at around 15 arcmin, and thereafter scales with the size of the spatial elements in the images. Here, we run corresponding experiments in the praying mantis Sphodromantis lineola to investigate how Dmax scales with the element size. We use random moving chequerboard patterns of varying element and displacement step sizes to elicit the optomotor response, a postural stabilization mechanism that causes mantids to lean in the direction of large-field motion. Subsequently, we calculate Dmax as the displacement step size corresponding to a 50% probability of detecting an optomotor response in the same direction as the stimulus. Our main findings are that the mantis Dmax scales roughly as a square-root of element size and that, in contrast to humans, it is not lower-bounded. We present two models to explain these observations: a simple high-level model based on motion energy in the Fourier domain and a more-detailed one based on the Reichardt Detector. The models present complementary intuitive and physiologically-realistic accounts of how Dmax scales with the element size in insects. We conclude that insect motion perception is limited by only a single stage of spatial filtering, reflecting the optics of the compound eye. In contrast, human motion perception reflects a second stage of spatial filtering, at coarser scales than imposed by human optics, likely corresponding to the magnocellular pathway. After this spatial filtering, mantis and human motion perception and Dmax are qualitatively very similar.

Contrast thresholds reveal different visual masking functions in humans and praying mantises

Recently, we showed a novel property of the Hassenstein–Reichardt detector, namely that insect motion detection can be masked by ‘undetectable’ noise, i.e. visual noise presented at spatial frequencies at which coherently moving gratings do not elicit a response (Tarawneh et al., 2017). That study compared the responses of human and insect motion detectors using different ways of quantifying masking (contrast threshold in humans and masking tuning function in insects). In addition, some adjustments in experimental procedure, such as presenting the stimulus at a short viewing distance, were necessary to elicit a response in insects. These differences offer alternative explanations for the observed difference between human and insect responses to visual motion noise. Here, we report the results of new masking experiments in which we test whether differences in experimental paradigm and stimulus presentation between humans and insects can account for the undetectable noise effect reported earlier. We obtained contrast thresholds at two signal and two noise frequencies in both humans and praying mantises (Sphodromantis lineola), and compared contrast threshold differences when noise has the same versus different spatial frequency as the signal. Furthermore, we investigated whether differences in viewing geometry had any qualitative impact on the results. Consistent with our earlier finding, differences in contrast threshold show that visual noise masks much more effectively when presented at signal spatial frequency in humans (compared to a lower or higher spatial frequency), while in insects, noise is roughly equivalently effective when presented at either the signal spatial frequency or lower (compared to a higher spatial frequency). The characteristic difference between human and insect responses was unaffected by correcting for the stimulus distortion caused by short viewing distances in insects. These findings constitute stronger evidence that the undetectable noise effect reported earlier is a genuine difference between human and insect motion processing, and not an artefact caused by differences in experimental paradigms.

Summary: We investigate alternative explanations for a reported difference between human and insect responses to masked moving gratings, and demonstrate that it is a genuine feature of their visual systems.