Cargando…
Spatiotemporal integration of isolated binocular three-dimensional motion cues
Two primary binocular cues—based on velocities seen by the two eyes or on temporal changes in binocular disparity—support the perception of three-dimensional (3D) motion. Although these cues support 3D motion perception in different perceptual tasks or regimes, stimulus cross-cue contamination and/o...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8419873/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34468705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/jov.21.10.2 |
Sumario: | Two primary binocular cues—based on velocities seen by the two eyes or on temporal changes in binocular disparity—support the perception of three-dimensional (3D) motion. Although these cues support 3D motion perception in different perceptual tasks or regimes, stimulus cross-cue contamination and/or substantial differences in spatiotemporal structure have complicated interpretations. We introduce novel psychophysical stimuli which cleanly isolate the cues, based on a design introduced in oculomotor work (Sheliga, Quaia, FitzGibbon, & Cumming, 2016). We then use these stimuli to characterize and compare the temporal and spatial integration properties of velocity- and disparity-based mechanisms. On average, temporal integration of velocity-based cues progressed more than twice as quickly as disparity-based cues; performance in each pure-cue condition saturated at approximately 200 ms and approximately 500 ms, respectively. This temporal distinction suggests that disparity-based 3D direction judgments may include a post-sensory stage involving additional integration time in some observers, whereas velocity-based judgments are rapid and seem to be more purely sensory in nature. Thus, these two binocular mechanisms appear to support 3D motion perception with distinct temporal properties, reflecting differential mixtures of sensory and decision contributions. Spatial integration profiles for the two mechanisms were similar, and on the scale of receptive fields in area MT. Consistent with prior work, there were substantial individual differences, which we interpret as both sensory and cognitive variations across subjects, further clarifying the case for distinct sets of both cue-specific sensory and cognitive mechanisms. The pure-cue stimuli presented here lay the groundwork for further investigations of velocity- and disparity-based contributions to 3D motion perception. |
---|