Moving observers, relative retinal motion and the detection of object movement

Rushton, Simon K.; Warren, Paul A.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.07.020

Cited by 96 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The problem bears similarity to the aperture problem whereby local motion detectors can only signal components of motion perpendicular to a moving object's contour. While MT neurons initially signal the perpendicular component of motion, responses shift toward the veridical direction of the object after ϳ60 ms (Pack and Born, 2001). Recovering world-relative object motion may similarly involve a dynamical solution: initial MT responses may reflect the reference frame of the observer and gradually converge onto the world-relative motion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Neural Model of MST and MT Explains Perceived Object Motion during Self-Motion

Layton

Fajen

2016

Journal of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a moving object cuts in front of a moving observer at a 90°angle, the observer correctly perceives that the object is traveling along a perpendicular path just as if viewing the moving object from a stationary vantage point. Although the observer's own (self-)motion affects the object's pattern of motion on the retina, the visual system is able to factor out the influence of self-motion and recover the world-relative motion of the object (

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Neural Model of MST and MT Explains Perceived Object Motion during Self-Motion

Layton

Fajen

2016

Journal of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been proposed that object motion can be parsed out from the optic flow created by self-motion, thus allowing a moving observer to detect a moving object. Rushton and colleagues [7][8][9] have suggested a flow-parsing mechanism that uses the brain's sensitivity to optic flow to separate retinal motion signals into those components owing to observer movement and those owing to the movement of objects in the scene.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acoustic facilitation of object movement detection during self-motion

Calabro¹,

Soto‐Faraco

Vaina

2011

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In humans, as well as most animal species, perception of object motion is critical to successful interaction with the surrounding environment. Yet, as the observer also moves, the retinal projections of the various motion components add to each other and extracting accurate object motion becomes computationally challenging. Recent psychophysical studies have demonstrated that observers use a flow-parsing mechanism to estimate and subtract self-motion from the optic flow field. We investigated whether concurrent acoustic cues for motion can facilitate visual flow parsing, thereby enhancing the detection of moving objects during simulated self-motion. Participants identified an object (the target) that moved either forward or backward within a visual scene containing nine identical textured objects simulating forward observer translation. We found that spatially co-localized, directionally congruent, moving auditory stimuli enhanced object motion detection. Interestingly, subjects who performed poorly on the visualonly task benefited more from the addition of moving auditory stimuli. When auditory stimuli were not co-localized to the visual target, improvements in detection rates were weak. Taken together, these results suggest that parsing object motion from self-motion-induced optic flow can operate on multisensory object representations.

show abstract

“…Humans also appear to utilize disparity information to segment moving objects. When no disparity information is available, humans take longer to respond and are less accurate when discriminating moving objects (Rushton, Bradshaw, & Warren, 2007;Rushton & Warren, 2005a, 2005b. Indeed, MT -cells can have ON-centers that prefer one disparity and OFF-surrounds that prefer another (Bradley & Andersen, 1998;Born & Bradley, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%