2004
DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185.63.3.173
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Spatial Configuration of Motion Signals on Motion Integration across Space

Abstract: The present study examined the effect of the spatial configuration of local signals on motion integration across space. The perceived coherency was measured in different configurations of apertures and combinations of motion directions. The results showed the following. (1) Motion integration across separate apertures is affected by the spatial configuration of the apertures. The perceived coherency was highest when the apertures were arranged symmetrically with respect to the coherent direction. (2) Though th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 21 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, this allowed us to manipulate the locations of these motion signals to be either consistent with an underlying plaid or jittered in space. The mimicked plaid from which these apertures were created, consisted of two identical superimposed asymmetric line gratings (Hupé and Rubin, 2003; Takahashi, 2004; Moreno-Bote et al, 2010) with a directional difference of 120° (±60 with respect to vertical). Stimulus directions were fixed with respect to the vertical rather than being randomized during the task to avoid previously reported idiosyncratic anisotropies in participant representations of direction (Rauber and Treue, 1999) and to simplify simulated categorical perceptual decisions during the modeling.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, this allowed us to manipulate the locations of these motion signals to be either consistent with an underlying plaid or jittered in space. The mimicked plaid from which these apertures were created, consisted of two identical superimposed asymmetric line gratings (Hupé and Rubin, 2003; Takahashi, 2004; Moreno-Bote et al, 2010) with a directional difference of 120° (±60 with respect to vertical). Stimulus directions were fixed with respect to the vertical rather than being randomized during the task to avoid previously reported idiosyncratic anisotropies in participant representations of direction (Rauber and Treue, 1999) and to simplify simulated categorical perceptual decisions during the modeling.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%