Biomedical subjects

William Curran

Publications and source records attributed to William Curran.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

New binary direction aftereffect does not add up.

Neural adaptation and inhibition are pervasive characteristics of the primate brain and are probably understood better within the context of visual processing than with any other sensory modality. These processes are thought to underlie illusions in which one motion affects the perceived direction of another, such as the direction aftereffect (DAE) and direction repulsion. The DAE describes how, following prolonged viewing of motion in one direction, the direction of a subsequently viewed test pattern is misperceived. In the case of direction repulsion, the direction difference between two transparently moving surfaces is overestimated. Explanations of the DAE appeal to neural adaptation, whereas direction repulsion is accounted for through lateral inhibition. Here, we report on a new illusion, the binary DAE (bDAE), in which superimposed slow and fast dots moving in the same direction are perceived to move in different directions following adaptation to a mixed-speed stimulus. This new phenomenon is essentially a combination of the DAE and direction repulsion. Interestingly, the magnitude of the bDAE is greater than would be expected simply through a linear combination of the DAE and direction repulsion, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying these two phenomena interact in a nonlinear fashion.

Adaptation, Physiological↗

PubMed2006

The direction aftereffect is driven by adaptation of local motion detectors.

The processing of motion information by the visual system can be decomposed into two general stages; point-by-point local motion extraction, followed by global motion extraction through the pooling of the local motion signals. The direction aftereffect (DAE) is a well known phenomenon in which prior adaptation to a unidirectional moving pattern results in an exaggerated perceived direction difference between the adapted direction and a subsequently viewed stimulus moving in a different direction. The experiments in this paper sought to identify where the adaptation underlying the DAE occurs within the motion processing hierarchy. We found that the DAE exhibits interocular transfer, thus demonstrating that the underlying adapted neural mechanisms are binocularly driven and must, therefore, reside in the visual cortex. The remaining experiments measured the speed tuning of the DAE, and used the derived function to test a number of local and global models of the phenomenon. Our data provide compelling evidence that the DAE is driven by the adaptation of motion-sensitive neurons at the local-processing stage of motion encoding. This is in contrast to earlier research showing that direction repulsion, which can be viewed as a simultaneous presentation counterpart to the DAE, is a global motion process. This leads us to conclude that the DAE and direction repulsion reflect interactions between motion-sensitive neural mechanisms at different levels of the motion-processing hierarchy.

Adaptation, Ocular↗

PubMed2006

Test stimulus characteristics determine the perceived speed of the dynamic motion aftereffect.

Using a speed-matching task, we measured the speed tuning of the dynamic motion aftereffect (MAE). The results of our first experiment, in which we co-varied dot speed in the adaptation and test stimuli, revealed a speed tuning function. We sought to tease apart what contribution, if any, the test stimulus makes towards the observed speed tuning. This was examined by independently manipulating dot speed in the adaptation and test stimuli, and measuring the effect this had on the perceived speed of the dynamic MAE. The results revealed that the speed tuning of the dynamic MAE is determined, not by the speed of the adaptation stimulus, but by the local motion characteristics of the dynamic test stimulus. The role of the test stimulus in determining the perceived speed of the dynamic MAE was confirmed by showing that, if one uses a test stimulus containing two sources of local speed information, observers report seeing a transparent MAE; this is despite the fact that adaptation is induced using a single-speed stimulus. Thus while the adaptation stimulus necessarily determines perceived direction of the dynamic MAE, its perceived speed is determined by the test stimulus. This dissociation of speed and direction supports the notion that the processing of these two visual attributes may be partially independent.

Figural Aftereffect↗

PubMed2003

Direction repulsion goes global.

When viewing two superimposed, translating sets of dots moving in different directions, one overestimates direction difference. This phenomenon of direction repulsion is thought to be driven by inhibitory interactions between directionally tuned motion detectors. However, there is disagreement on where this occurs-at early stages of motion processing, when local motions are extracted; or at the later, global motion-processing stage following "pooling" of these local measures. These two stages of motion processing have been identified as occurring in area V1 and the human homolog of macaque MT/V5, respectively. We designed experiments in which local and global predictions of repulsion are pitted against one another. Our stimuli contained a target set of dots, moving at a uniform speed, superimposed on a "mixed-speed" distractor set. Because the perceived speed of a mixed-speed stimulus is equal to the dots' average speed, a global-processing account of direction repulsion predicts that repulsion magnitude induced by a mixed-speed distractor will be indistinguishable from that induced by a single-speed distractor moving at the same mean speed. This is exactly what we found. These results provide compelling evidence that global-motion interactions play a major role in driving direction repulsion.

Humans↗

PubMed2003

Speed tuning of direction repulsion describes an inverted U-function.

Direction repulsion describes the phenomenon in which observers typically overestimate the direction difference between two superimposed motions moving in different directions (Marshak & Sekuler, Science 205 (1979) 1399). Previous research has found that, when a relatively narrow range of distractor speeds is considered, direction repulsion of a target motion increases monotonically with increasing speed of the distractor motion. We sought to obtain a more complete measurement of this speed-tuning function by considering a wider range of distractor speeds than has previously been used. Our results show that, contrary to previous reports, direction repulsion as a function of distractor speed describes an inverted U-function. For a target of 2.5 deg/s, we demonstrate that the attenuation of repulsion magnitude with high-speed disractors can be largely explained in terms of the reduced apparent contrast of the distractor. However, when we reduce target motion speed, this no longer holds. When considered from the perspective of Edwards et al.'s (Edwards, Badcock, & Smith, Vision Research 38 (1998) 1573) two global-motion channels, our results suggest that direction repulsion is speed dependent when the distractor and target motions are processed by different global-motion channels, but is not speed dependent when both motions are processed by the same, high-speed channel. The implications of these results for models of direction repulsion are discussed.

Adaptation, Ocular↗

PubMed2002

Directional performance in motion transparency.

Motion transparency provides a challenging test case for our understanding of how visual motion, and other attributes, are computed and represented in the brain. However, previous studies of visual transparency have used subjective criteria which do not confirm the existence of independent representations of the superimposed motions. We have developed measures of performance in motion transparency that require observers to extract information about two motions jointly, and therefore test the information that is simultaneously represented for each motion. Observers judged whether two motions were at 90 degrees to one another; the base direction was randomized so that neither motion taken alone was informative. The precision of performance was determined by the standard deviations (S.D.s) of probit functions fitted to the data. Observers also made judgments of orthogonal directions between a single motion stream and a line, for one of two transparent motions against a line and for two spatially segregated motions. The data show that direction judgments with transparency can be made with comparable accuracy to segregated (non-transparent) conditions, supporting the idea that transparency involves the equivalent representation of two global motions in the same region. The precision of this joint direction judgment is, however, 2-3 times poorer than that for a single motion stream. The precision in directional judgment for a single stream is reduced only by a factor of about 1.5 by superimposing a second stream. The major effect in performance, therefore, appears to be associated with the need to compute and compare two global representations of motion, rather than with interference between the dot streams per se. Experiment 2 tested the transparency of motions separated by a range of angles from 5 degrees to 180 degrees by requiring subjects to set a line matching the perceived direction of each motion. The S.D.s of these settings demonstrated that directions of transparent motions were represented independently for separations over 20 degrees. Increasing dot speeds from 1 to 10 deg/s improved directional performance but had no effect on transparency perception. Transparency was also unaffected by variations of density between 0.1 and 19 dots/deg(2)

Discrimination, Psychological↗