Smooth pursuit operates over perceived not physical positions of the double-drift stimulus

Maechler, Marvin; Heller, Nathan H.; Lisi, Matteo; Cavanagh, Patrick; Tse, Peter U.

doi:10.1167/jov.21.11.6

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Glasser and Tadin (2014); Spering and Gegenfurtner (2007); Spering et al (2011). However, we found here that another eye movement response, smooth pursuit, reveals estimates of motion direction that are virtually equivalent to those found for perceptual judgments (see also Maechler et al (2021)), suggesting that pursuit and perception use similar computation to estimate the velocity vector of the double-drift stimulus. One possible account of the current results therefore could be that saccade and pursuit are informed by different motion processing mechanisms.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Different extrapolation of moving object locations in perception, smooth pursuit and saccades

Lisi

Cavanagh

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The processing of visual motion signals is pivotal to accurate sensorimotor control: to successfully intercept an object in motion the brain needs to take into account the object's velocity together with neural and motor delays. Here we test the effect of a target's motion on perception, saccade, and pursuit responses, collecting all three measures together on each trial. Motion information may have different effects on these three processes (Simoncini et al., 2012; Spering et al., 2011). Our comparison across the three different systems make use of a moving target that contains a second motion signal unrelated to its displacement (the double-drift stimulus). We presented peripheral moving apertures filled with noise that either drifted orthogonally to the aperture's direction, dramatically affecting its perceived direction of motion (Tse and Hsieh, 2006; Lisi and Cavanagh, 2015; Shapiro et al., 2010), or that varied dynamically with no net motion. Participants were asked to saccade to and track these targets with their gaze as soon as they appeared (Rashbass, 1961) and then to report their direction. In the trials with internal motion, the target disappeared at saccade onset so that the first 100 ms or so of the post-saccadic pursuit response was driven uniquely by peripheral information gathered before saccade onset. This provided independent measures of perceptual, pursuit and saccadic responses to the double-drift stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. There was nevertheless a strong dissociation between saccadic responses on one hand and and perceptual and pursuit responses on the other. We conclude that the dissociation between perception and saccadic eye movements in the localization of moving objects (Lisi and Cavanagh, 2015) does not involve different processing of motion signals but rather a difference in how motion signals are combined with target position.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Different extrapolation of moving object locations in perception, smooth pursuit and saccades

Lisi

Cavanagh

2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We simultaneously recorded human perceptual direction estimates and OFR in response to plaids composed of gratings with varying luminance contrasts and presented for different lengths of time. Similar contrast-dependent pattern sensitivity in eye movements and perceptual reports would be congruent with psychophysical studies concluding that eye movements and perception rely on shared processing of direction and speed signals ( Gegenfurtner et al, 2003 ; Stone and Krauzlis, 2003 ; Maechler et al, 2021 ; for reviews, see Schütz et al, 2011 ; Spering and Montagnini, 2011 ). Alternatively, visual signals may be processed differently for eye movements and perception ( Spering and Gegenfurtner, 2007 ; Tavassoli and Ringach, 2010 ; Spering et al, 2011 ; Simoncini et al, 2012 ; Glasser and Tadin, 2014 ; Lisi and Cavanagh, 2015 ; for a review, see Spering and Carrasco, 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Shared Mechanisms Drive Ocular Following and Motion Perception

Kreyenmeier,

Kumbhani,

Movshon

et al. 2024

eNeuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How features of complex visual patterns are combined to drive perception and eye movements is not well understood. Here we simultaneously assessed human observers’ perceptual direction estimates and ocular following responses (OFR) evoked by moving plaids made from two summed gratings with varying contrast ratios. When the gratings were of equal contrast, observers’ eye movements and perceptual reports followed the motion of the plaid pattern. However, when the contrasts were unequal, eye movements and reports during early phases of the OFR were biased toward the direction of the high-contrast grating component; during later phases, both responses followed the plaid pattern direction. The shift from component- to pattern-driven behavior resembles the shift in tuning seen under similar conditions in neuronal responses recorded from monkey MT. Moreover, for some conditions, pattern tracking and perceptual reports were correlated on a trial-by-trial basis. The OFR may therefore provide a precise behavioural read-out of the dynamics of neural motion integration for complex visual patterns.Significance StatementNavigating our natural environment requires that we sense, perceive, and track the motion of objects. Here we investigate how pattern motion signals are computed and integrated to drive human eye movements and perception. We show that ultra-short latency ocular following movements and perception integrate complex motion signals similarly, shifting from component-driven to pattern-driven responses during the first fraction of a second after the onset of visual motion. These results resemble the shift in tuning in neuronal responses recorded from monkey MT and indicate that human ocular following provides a precise behavioral readout of these neuronal dynamics.

show abstract

“…Indeed, some lines of evidence suggest that visual motion analysis can be specifically tailored for each function it serves (Simoncini et al, 2012), so that when confronted with the same motion stimulus, different responses, such as perceptual reports and eye movements, can reveal large differences in the estimated parameters (speed or direction) of the motion (e.g., Glasser & Tadin, 2014;Spering & Gegenfurtner, 2007;Spering et al, 2011). However, we found here that another eye movement response, smooth pursuit, reveals estimates of motion direction that are virtually equivalent to those found for perceptual judgments (see also Maechler, Heller, Lisi, Cavanagh, & Tse, 2021), suggesting that both perception and pursuit employ similar computational mechanisms to estimate the velocity vector of the double-drift stimulus. A possible interpretation of our findings could suggest that saccades and pursuit are guided by separate representations of velocity-and position-related signals.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Different extrapolation of moving object locations in perception, smooth pursuit, and saccades

Lisi,

Cavanagh

2024

Journal of Vision

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to accurately perceive and track moving objects is crucial for many everyday activities. In this study, we use a "double-drift stimulus" to explore the processing of visual motion signals that underlie perception, pursuit, and saccade responses to a moving object. Participants were presented with peripheral moving apertures filled with noise that either drifted orthogonally to the aperture's direction or had no net motion. Participants were asked to saccade to and track these targets with their gaze as soon as they appeared and then to report their direction. In the trials with internal motion, the target disappeared at saccade onset so that the first 100 ms of the postsaccadic pursuit response was driven uniquely by peripheral information gathered before saccade onset. This provided independent measures of perceptual, pursuit, and saccadic responses to the double-drift stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. Our analysis revealed systematic differences between saccadic responses, on one hand, and perceptual and pursuit responses, on the other. These differences are unlikely to be caused by differences in the processing of motion signals because both saccades and pursuits seem to rely on shared target position and velocity information. We conclude that our results are instead due to a difference in how the processing mechanisms underlying perception, pursuit, and saccades combine motor signals with target position. These findings advance our understanding of the mechanisms underlying dissociation in visual processing between perception and eye movements.

show abstract

Smooth pursuit operates over perceived not physical positions of the double-drift stimulus

Cited by 3 publications

References 50 publications

Different extrapolation of moving object locations in perception, smooth pursuit and saccades

Different extrapolation of moving object locations in perception, smooth pursuit and saccades

Shared Mechanisms Drive Ocular Following and Motion Perception

Different extrapolation of moving object locations in perception, smooth pursuit, and saccades

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About