Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

Paradoxical stabilization of relative position in moving frames

To capture where things are and what they are doing, the visual system may extract the position and motion of each object relative to its surrounding frame of reference [K. Duncker, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 161-172 (1929) and G. Johansson, Acta Psychol (Amst.) 7, 25-79 (1950)]. Here we report a particularly powerful example where a paradoxical stabilization is produced by a moving frame. We first take a frame that moves left and right and we flash its right edge before, and its left edge after, the frame's motion. For all frame displacements tested, the two edges are perceived as stabilized, with the left edge on the left and right edge on the right, separated by the frame's width as if the frame were not moving. This stabilization is paradoxical because the motion of the frame itself remains visible, albeit much reduced. A second experiment demonstrated that unlike other motion-induced position shifts (e.g., flash lag, flash grab, flash drag, or Fröhlich), the illusory shift here is independent of speed and is set instead by the distance of the frame's travel. In this experiment, two probes are flashed inside the frame at the same physical location before and after the frame moves. Despite being physically superimposed, the probes are perceived widely separated, again as if they were seen in the frame's coordinates and the frame were stationary. This paradoxical stabilization suggests a link to visual stability across eye movements where the displacement of the entire visual scene may act as a frame to stabilize the perception of relative locations.

The reference frame for encoding and retention of motion depends on stimulus set size

The goal of this study was to investigate the reference frames used in perceptual encoding and storage of visual motion information. In our experiments, observers viewed multiple moving objects and reported the direction of motion of a randomly selected item. Using a vector-decomposition technique, we computed performance during smooth pursuit with respect to a spatiotopic (nonretinotopic) and to a retinotopic component and compared them with performance during fixation, which served as the baseline. For the stimulus encoding stage, which precedes memory, we found that the reference frame depends on the stimulus set size. For a single moving target, the spatiotopic reference frame had the most significant contribution with some additional contribution from the retinotopic reference frame. When the number of items increased (Set Sizes 3 to 7), the spatiotopic reference frame was able to account for the performance. Finally, when the number of items became larger than 7, the distinction between reference frames vanished. We interpret this finding as a switch to a more abstract nonmetric encoding of motion direction. We found that the retinotopic reference frame was not used in memory. Taken together with other studies, our results suggest that, whereas a retinotopic reference frame may be employed for controlling eye movements, perception and memory use primarily nonretinotopic reference frames. Furthermore, the use of nonretinotopic reference frames appears to be capacity limited. In the case of complex stimuli, the visual system may use perceptual grouping in order to simplify the complexity of stimuli or resort to a nonmetric abstract coding of motion information.

Spatial properties of non-retinotopic reference frames in human vision

Many visual attributes of a target stimulus are computed according to dynamic, non-retinotopic reference frames. For example, the motion trajectory of a reflector on a bicycle wheel is perceived as orbital, even though it is in fact cycloidal in retinal, as well as spatial coordinates. We cannot perceive the cycloidal motion because the linear motion of the bike is discounted for. In other words, the linear motion common to all bicycle components serves as a non-retinotopic reference frame, with respect to which the residual (orbital) motion of the reflector is computed. Very little is known about the underlying mechanisms involved in formation and operation of non-retinotopic reference frames. Here, we investigate spatial properties of non-retinotopic reference frames. We show that reference frames are not restricted within the boundaries of moving stimuli but extend over space. By using a variation of the Ternus-Pikler paradigm, we show that the spatial extent of a non-retinotopic reference frame is independent of the size of the inducing elements and the target position near the object boundary. While dynamic reference-frames interact with each other significantly, a static reference-frame has no effect on a dynamic one. The magnitude of interactions between two neighboring dynamic reference-frames increases as the distance between them reduces. Finally, our results indicate that the reference-frame strength is significantly attenuated if the locus of attention is shifted to the elements of the neighboring reference instead of the main reference. We suggest that these results can be conceptualized as reference frames that act and interact as fields.