Opponent-motion mechanisms are self-normalizing

Abstract

In the ultimate stage of the Adelson-Bergen motion energy model [Adelson, E. H., & Bergen, J. (1985). Spatiotemporal energy models for the perception of motion. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 2, 284-299], motion is derived from the difference between directionally opponent energies E(L) and E(R). However, Georgeson and Scott-Samuel [Georgeson, M. A., & Scott-Samuel, N. E. (1999). Motion contrast: A new metric for direction discrimination. Vision Research, 39, 4393-4402] demonstrated that motion contrast-a metric that normalizes opponent motion energy (E(L)-E(R)) by flicker energy (E(L)+E(R))-is a better descriptor of human direction discrimination. In a previous study [Rainville, S. J. M., Makous, W. L., & Scott-Samuel, N. E. (2002). The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization. Vision Research, 42, 1727-1738], we used a lateral masking paradigm to show that opponent-motion normalization is selective for flicker position, orientation, and spatial-frequency. In the present study, we used a superposition masking paradigm and compared results to lateral masking data, as the two masking types activate local and remote normalization mechanisms differentially. Although selectivity for flicker orientation and spatial frequency varied across observers, bandwidths were similar across lateral and superimposed masking conditions. Additional experiments demonstrated that normalization signals are pooled over a spatial region whose aspect ratio and size are consistent with those of local motion detectors. Together, results show no evidence of remote normalization signals predicted by broadband inhibitory models [(e.g.) Heeger, D. J. (1992). Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex. Visual Neuroscience, 9, 181-197; Foley, J. M. (1994). Human luminance pattern-vision mechanisms: Masking experiments require a new model. Journal of the Optical Society of America A-Optics and Image Science, 11, 1710-1719] but support a local normalization process whose spatial properties are inherited from low-level motion detectors.

DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.018

Extracted Key Phrases

6 Figures and Tables

Cite this paper

@article{Rainville2005OpponentmotionMA, title={Opponent-motion mechanisms are self-normalizing}, author={St{\'e}phane J.M. Rainville and Walter Makous and Nicholas E. Scott-Samuel}, journal={Vision Research}, year={2005}, volume={45}, pages={1115-1127} }