Motion accumulates while movement disappears:
spatial interactions in visual motion


Peter B. Meilstrup

A dissertation submitted
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Washington
2014
Reading Committee:
Michael N. Shadlen, chair
Farrel R. Robinson
John C. Palmer

Program Authorized to Offer Degree:
Neurobiology and Behavior

Copyright 2014
Peter B. Meilstrup

University of Washington

Abstract

Motion accumulates while movement disappears: spatial interactions in visual motion

Peter B. Meilstrup

Chair of the Supervisory Committee:
Professor Michael N. Shadlen
Department of Physiology and Biophysics

When objects move, they change position over time. However, the mechanisms in human vision that could be capable of tracking these changes in position are not well understood. I constructed stimuli that combined a first-order carrier motion with a position-defined envelope movement. When viewed in the periphery, the appearance of motion was very sensitive to changes in position of its envelope, regardless the amount of carrier motion. However, when multiple motion elements were placed close together, the appearance of the stimulus came to be dominated by its carrier motion. When elements were added, sensitivity to position-defined motion decreased at the same time as the sensitivity to first-order motion increased; visual clutter thus favors first-order motion over position-defined motion. These effects are modeled in terms of two mechanisms that each contribute to motion appearance. The first-order mechanism sums motion over larger areas of space without regard to their position; in the presence of clutter, it sums all signals together. The position-defined mechanism tracks the change in location of isolated features; it cannot pool signals over space and works best with salient, uncluttered objects. This mechanism suffers crowding when flankers are introduced. While first-order motion is understood in terms of spatiotemporal filtering, position-defined motion might be viewed as a feature integration problem, involving the comparison of successive positions over time. These systems have a subtractive interaction that may serve to locate objects that are moving differently from their background. Complementary characteristics and limitations of the two systems each play roles in the perception of moving objects.

1 Introduction
2 Demonstrations
3 General Methods
 3.1 Observers
 3.2 Equipment
 3.3 Stimuli
 3.4 Task
 3.5 Staircase procedure
 3.6 Data folding
 3.7 Data analysis
4 Model details and motivation
5 Experiment 1
 5.1 Methods
 5.2 Results
 5.3 Model and data visualizations
 5.4 Model components, effect sizes, and goodness of fit
6 Experiment 2
 6.1 Methods
 6.2 Results
7 Discussion
 7.1 First order motion exhibits summation over large areas
 7.2 Position-defined motion does not pool across objects
 7.3 Sensitivity to position-defined motion is limited by crowding
 7.4 Local and global motion (a note on terminology)
 7.5 First-order and position-defined motion have a subtractive interaction
 7.6 Conflicts between first-order and position-defined motion
 7.7 Possible neurophysiology of position-defined motion
 7.8 Motion processing systems may complement each others’ limitations
 7.9 Acknowledgements
8 Appendix: Model fits and data for all observers
 8.1 Model fits in perspective and contour plots
 8.2 Sensitivity to envelope displacement
 8.3 Sensitivity to carrier motion
 8.4 Carrier repulsion
 8.5 Number and spacing
References