Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7126687

Frequency limitations of the two-point central difference differentiation algorithm.

A T Bahill·J S Kallman·J E Lieberman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A two-point central difference algorithm is often used to calculate the derivative of a function. This estimate is only valid over a limited frequency range. Therefore, the algorithm can be modeled as an ideal differentiator in series with a low-pass filter. The filter cutoff frequency is a function of the time between the points. We discuss the accuracy and limitations of using this algorithm on human saccadic eye movement data. To calculate the velocity of saccadic eye movements the algorithm should have a cutoff frequency of 74 Hz or above.

Explore related subjects

Eye MovementsHumansMathematicsModels, BiologicalSaccadesJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A T Bahill, J S Kallman, J E Lieberman. 1982. Frequency limitations of the two-point central difference differentiation algorithm.. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00387207

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2005

The psychology of film: perceiving beyond the cut.

First-order editing violations in film refer either to small displacements of the camera position or to small changes of the image size. Second-order editing violations follow from a reversal of the camera position (reversed-angle shot), leading to a change of the left-right position of the main actors (or objects) and a complete change of the background. With third-order editing violations, the linear sequence of actions in the narrative story is not obeyed. The present experiment focuses on the eye movements following a new shot with or without a reversed-angle camera position. The findings minimize the importance of editing rules which require perceptually smooth transitions between shots; there is also no evidence that changes in the left-right orientation of objects in the scene disturb the visual processing of successive shots. The observed eye movements are due either to the redirecting of attention to the most informative part on the scene or to attention shifts by motion transients in the shot. There is almost no evidence for confusion and/or for activities to restore the spatial arrangement following the reversal of the left-right positions.

Eye Movements↗
PubMed2005

Multisensory integration: space, time and superadditivity.

The superior colliculus generates and controls eye and head movements based on signals from different senses. The latest research on this structure enhances our understanding of the mechanisms of multisensory integration in the brain.

Eye Movements↗
PubMed2005

Semantic evaluation of syntactic structure: evidence from eye movements.

An eye movement study of temporarily ambiguous closure sentences confirmed that the early closure penalty in a sentence like While John hunted the frightened deer escaped is larger for a simple past verb (hunted) than for a past progressive verb (was hunting). The results can be explained by the observation that simple past tense verbs convey an external viewpoint on an event, which presumably fits best when the event described has an endpoint. A definite description object supplies an endpoint. Consequently, to give up the late closure analysis of the post-verbal object when the verb is in the simple past tense, the processor is abandoning an analysis with semantically-expected properties for one which is not as good semantically. By contrast, a progressive verb denotes an activity which does not require an endpoint and therefore is neutral with respect to whether or not it takes an object.

Eye Movements↗