A belongingness principle of motion perception.

DiVita, Joseph; Rock, Irvin

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.5.1343

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Factoring out these biases thus would only cause an overall upward shift, not affect the statistical analysis. The drop in the effect The results replicate the distance-dependent influence of motionbased reference frames on the perceived motion of nearby objects that has already been shown by several studies (DiVita & Rock, 1997;Hochberg & Fallon, 1976;Mori, 1979;Shum & Wolford, 1983). All of these studies lend support to the claim that common motion might serve as a reference frame, but its effectiveness is limited to a spatial region.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 76%

“…Moreover, as was acknowledged by the authors, their model in its current form cannot account for induced motion, in which a stationary object is seen to be moving in the opposite direction from a surrounding (or neighboring) moving object. This is partly due to a claim that vector decomposition and induced motion arise from different neural mechanisms (DiVita & Rock, 1997). For instance, induced motion is not perceived after the motion threshold (up to 3°/ s) for the frame is reached.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The gist of Johansson's theory lies in the extraction of common and relative motion components. However, many studies have demonstrated that the extraction of common motion is not always perfect (DiVita & Rock, 1997;Gogel, 1974;Hochberg & McAlister, 1953;Johansson, 1974;Mori, 1979Mori, , 1984Wallach, 1959). More importantly, in mathematical terms, vector decomposition is an ill-posed problem and needs additional information to be solved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

Aga-Oglu

Herzog

Öğmen

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A reference frame is required to specify how motion is perceived. For example, the motion of part of an object is usually perceived relative to the motion of the object itself. Johansson (Psychological Research, 38, 379-393, 1976) proposed that the perceptual system carries out a vector decomposition, which rewsults in common and relative motion percepts. Because vector decomposition is an ill-posed problem, several studies have introduced constraints by means of which the number of solutions can be substantially reduced. Here, we have adopted an alternative approach and studied how, rather than why, a subset of solutions is selected by the visual system. We propose that each retinotopic motion vector creates a reference-frame field in the retinotopic space, and that the fields created by different motion vectors interact in order to determine a motion vector that will serve as the reference frame at a given point and time in space. To test this theory, we performed a set of psychophysical experiments. The field-like influence of motion-based reference frames was manifested by increased nonspatiotopic percepts of the backward motion of a target square with decreasing distance from a drifting grating. We then sought to determine whether these fieldlike effects of motion-based reference frames can also be extended to stationary landmarks. The results suggest that reference-field interactions occur only between motiongenerated fields. Finally, we investigated whether and how different reference fields interact with each other, and found that different reference-field interactions are nonlinear and depend on how the motion vectors are grouped. These findings are discussed from the perspective of the reference-frame metric field (RFMF) theory, according to which perceptual grouping operations play a central and essential role in determining the prevailing reference frames.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

Aga-Oglu

Herzog

Öğmen

2015

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The model would need to be refined to account for induced motion displays using an oscillating rectangle to induce an opposite perceived motion direction in a static dot (Duncker, 1929(Duncker, /1938. The suggestion that additional mechanisms are needed to explain induced motion is supported by experimental evidence highlighting differences between induced motion and vector decomposition, as summarized by Di Vita and Rock (1997). For example, induced motion is typically not observed when the reference frame's physical speed is above the threshold for motion detection, whereas the vector decomposition stimuli analyzed here are robust to variations in speed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

“…Subtraction of the commonmotion component is due to inhibition from cells coding for the nearer depth to cells coding for the farther depth. We show below how interdepth directional inhibition causes a peak shift (Grossberg & Levine, 1976) in directional selectivity that behaves like a vector decomposition.Following Johansson (1950), vector decomposition has been invoked to explain motion perception in multiple experiments employing a variety of stimulus configurations (e.g., Börjesson & von Hofsten, 1972, 1975, 1977Cutting & Proffitt, 1982;Di Vita & Rock, 1997;Gogel & MacCracken, 1979;Gogel & Tietz, 1976;Johansson, 1974;Post, Chi, Heckmann, & Chaderjian, 1989). The bulk of this work supports the view that vector decomposition is a useful concept in characterizing object-centric frames of reference in motion perception.…”

supporting

confidence: 57%

How do object reference frames and motion vector decomposition emerge in laminar cortical circuits?

Grossberg

Léveillé²,

Versace³

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do spatially disjoint and ambiguous local motion signals in multiple directions generate coherent and unambiguous representations of object motion? Various motion percepts, starting with those of Duncker (Induced motion, 1929(Induced motion, /1938 and Johansson (Configurations in event perception, 1950), obey a rule of vector decomposition, in which global motion appears to be subtracted from the true motion path of localized stimulus components, so that objects and their parts are seen as moving relative to a common reference frame. A neural model predicts how vector decomposition results from multiple-scale and multiple-depth interactions within and between the formand motion-processing streams in V1-V2 and V1-MST, which include form grouping, form-to-motion capture, figure-ground separation, and object motion capture mechanisms. Particular advantages of the model are that these mechanisms solve the aperture problem, group spatially disjoint moving objects via illusory contours, capture object motion direction signals on real and illusory contours, and use interdepth directional inhibition to cause a vector decomposition, whereby the motion directions of a moving frame at a nearer depth suppress those directions at a farther depth, and thereby cause a peak shift in the perceived directions of object parts moving with respect to the frame.Keywords Motion perception . Vector decomposition . Frames of reference . Peak shift . Complementary computing . V2 . MT . MST How do we make sense of the complex motions of multiple interacting objects and their parts? One required computational step is to represent the various motion paths in an appropriate reference frame. Various ways of defining a reference frame have been proposed, ranging from retinocentric, in which an object is coded relative to the location of the activity it induces on the retina, to geocentric, in which objects are represented independent of the observer's viewpoint (Wade & Swanston, 1987). According to an object-centered reference frame (Bremner, Bryant, & Mareschal, 2005;Wade & Swanston, 1996), objects are perceived relative to other objects. For example, on a cloudy night, the moon may appear to be moving in a direction opposite to that of the clouds. In a laboratory setting, this concept is well-illustrated by induced-motion experiments, wherein the motion of one object appears to cause opponent motion in another, otherwise static, object (Duncker, 1929(Duncker, /1938. Frames of referenceFrom a functional perspective, the creation of perceptual relative frames of reference may be one mechanism evolved by the brain to represent the motion of individual objects in a scene. This ability appears especially important when considering that the meaningfulness of the motion of a particular object can often be compromised by the motion of another object. For example, when looking at a person waving a hand from a moving train, the motion components of the hand and the train become mixed together. By representing the motion of the hand rel...

show abstract

Movement and Event Perception

Shiffrar¹

2008

Blackwell Handbook of Sensation and Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A belongingness principle of motion perception.

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

Field-like interactions between motion-based reference frames

How do object reference frames and motion vector decomposition emerge in laminar cortical circuits?

Movement and Event Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About