Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Motion”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Radiographic analysis of lumbar motion in relation to lumbosacral stability. Investigation of moderate and maximum motion.

STUDY DESIGN: This in vivo study was performed to examine active lumbar motion without any support. OBJECTIVES: To establish the behavior of segmental flexibility according to the degree of whole lumbar motion and to clarify the correlation between bony characteristics of the lumbosacral junction and stability in the segment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In previous studies, the full mobility of the lumbar segments has been investigated. The details of motion commonly seen with the activities of daily living have not been clarified. It has been reported that the iliolumbar ligaments have an influence on lumbosacral stability and that the relative thickness of the transverse process of L5 could indicate the functional strength of the iliolumbar ligaments. However, the effects of the iliolumbar ligaments on the lumbosacral range of motion have not been studied in vivo. METHODS: Ninety adults, aged 20-39 years, were requested to perform motion commonly associated with activities of daily living, defined as moderate motions of the lumbar spine. The subjects then were asked to perform maximal motion of the lumbar spine. The segmental ranges of motion, segmental flexion, and extension at every level of the lumbar spine were calculated by using functional radiographs. The correlation between the relative thickness of the transverse process of L5 and the motion seen at the lumbosacral junction was also determined. RESULTS: The greatest segmental range of motion was found at L2-L3 in moderate motion and at L4-L5 in maximal motion. It shifted gradually from the upper to lower lumbar levels with the increase in total lumbar motion. With an increase in lumbar spine motion, maximum segmental flexion shifted from L2-L3 to L3-L4, then to L4-L5. Segmental extension changed only at L5-S1, increasing with total lumbar spine motion. There was an inverse statistical correlation between lumbosacral motion and relative thickness of the L5 transverse process. CONCLUSIONS: The greatest segmental flexibility induced by the moderate lumbar motion, usually seen with the activities of daily living, occurred more in the upper segments of the lumbar spine, especially in flexion. Further, the iliolumbar ligaments regulate lumbosacral motion especially flexion.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2006

Auditory motion affects visual biological motion processing.

The processing of biological motion is a critical, everyday task performed with remarkable efficiency by human sensory systems. Interest in this ability has focused to a large extent on biological motion processing in the visual modality (see, for example, Cutting, J. E., Moore, C., & Morrison, R. (1988). Masking the motions of human gait. Perception and Psychophysics, 44(4), 339-347). In naturalistic settings, however, it is often the case that biological motion is defined by input to more than one sensory modality. For this reason, here in a series of experiments we investigate behavioural correlates of multisensory, in particular audiovisual, integration in the processing of biological motion cues. More specifically, using a new psychophysical paradigm we investigate the effect of suprathreshold auditory motion on perceptions of visually defined biological motion. Unlike data from previous studies investigating audiovisual integration in linear motion processing [Meyer, G. F. & Wuerger, S. M. (2001). Cross-modal integration of auditory and visual motion signals. Neuroreport, 12(11), 2557-2560; Wuerger, S. M., Hofbauer, M., & Meyer, G. F. (2003). The integration of auditory and motion signals at threshold. Perception and Psychophysics, 65(8), 1188-1196; Alais, D. & Burr, D. (2004). No direction-specific bimodal facilitation for audiovisual motion detection. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 185-194], we report the existence of direction-selective effects: relative to control (stationary) auditory conditions, auditory motion in the same direction as the visually defined biological motion target increased its detectability, whereas auditory motion in the opposite direction had the inverse effect. Our data suggest these effects do not arise through general shifts in visuo-spatial attention, but instead are a consequence of motion-sensitive, direction-tuned integration mechanisms that are, if not unique to biological visual motion, at least not common to all types of visual motion. Based on these data and evidence from neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies we discuss the neural mechanisms likely to underlie this effect.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed2005

Motion in depth from interocular velocity differences revealed by differential motion aftereffect.

There are two possible binocular mechanisms for the detection of motion in depth. One is based on disparity changes over time and the other is based on interocular velocity differences. It has previously been shown that disparity changes over time can produce the perception of motion in depth. However, existing psychophysical and physiological data are inconclusive as to whether interocular velocity differences play a role in motion in depth perception. We studied this issue using the motion aftereffect, the illusory motion of static patterns that follows adaptation to real motion. We induced a differential motion aftereffect to the two eyes and then tested for motion in depth in a stationary random-dot pattern seen with both eyes. It has been shown previously that a differential translational motion aftereffect produces a strong perception of motion in depth. We show here that a rotational motion aftereffect inhibits this perception of motion in depth, even though a real rotation induces motion in depth. A non-horizontal translational motion aftereffect did not inhibit motion in depth. Together, our results strongly suggest that (1) pure interocular velocity differences can produce motion in depth, and (2) the illusory changes in position from the motion aftereffect are generated relatively late in the visual hierarchy, after binocular combination.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMed2002

Failure of direction identification for briefly presented second-order motion stimuli: evidence for weak direction selectivity of the mechanisms encoding motion.

We sought to investigate why the direction of second-order motion, unlike first-order motion, cannot be identified when the stimulus exposure duration is brief (<200 ms). In a series of experiments observers identified both the orientation (vertical or horizontal) and the direction (left, right, down or up) of a drifting sinusoidal modulation (0.93 c/ degrees ) in either the luminance (first order) or the contrast (second order) of a two-dimensional noise carrier. All motion stimuli were equated for visibility, and the duration was varied using the method of constant stimuli. Performance was measured for second-order motion over a range of drift temporal frequencies (0.63-5.04 Hz) and for first-order motion stimuli composed of two, opposite drifting modulations in luminance of unequal modulation depth. Orientation-identification performance was nearly 100% correct for both first-order and second-order motion stimuli, even at the briefest stimulus duration tested (26.49 ms). Direction identification for first-order motion was also typically good with brief presentations, but was poor for second-order motion when the exposure duration was < approximately 200 ms. Importantly increasing either the drift temporal frequency of second-order motion or the bidirectional nature of the first-order motion patterns produced comparable levels of performance for the two varieties of motion (i.e. the minimum duration required for reliable direction identification could be equated). As orientation-identification performance for the first-order and second-order motion stimuli was comparably good and minimally affected by duration, the marked differences on the direction-identification task must be specific to mechanisms that encode drift direction, rather than spatial structure. We propose that second-order motion detectors are much less selective for stimulus direction than first-order motion sensors, and thus are more susceptible to the deleterious effects of limiting stimulus duration (which introduces spurious motion in the opposite direction, particularly at low drift rates). Alternative explanations based on the delayed propagation of second-order motion signals or the temporal characteristics of the underlying motion mechanisms are not supported by our findings.

Humans↗
PubMed1995

Global motion perception: no interaction between the first- and second-order motion pathways.

The experiments reported here address the issue of whether the pathways which extract motion from first-order and second-order spatial patterns remain separate or whether they combine at some higher level in the motion system to form a single pathway. The question is addressed by investigating the interaction of first-order and second-order stimuli in the processing of a global-motion stimulus [a variant of the task introduced by Newsome & Pare (Journal of Neuroscience, 8, 2201-2211, (1988)]. Two experimental procedures were used. The first consisted of determining the effect of the addition of dots of one type (e.g. first order) undergoing purely random motion on the ability to extract the global-motion signal carried by dots of the other type (e.g. second order). The second experimental procedure consisted of determining the effect of maintaining a coherent-motion signal in one type of dot, moving in the opposite direction to the global-motion direction, on the ability to extract the global-motion signal carried by dots of the other type. The dots were matched for their effectiveness in producing a global motion percept and the results for both procedures were the same. First-order dots impaired the ability to extract second-order global-motion, and second-order dots had no effect on first-order global-motion extraction. It is argued that the sensitivity of the second-order global-motion system to the first-order dots is due to the ability of the second-order local-motion detectors to detect these dots. The present results are thus interpreted as indicating that the first-order and second-order motion pathways remain separate up to and including the level in the motion system at which global-motion signals are extracted.

Humans↗
PubMed1996

The shape of self-motion perception--II. framework and principles for simple and complex motion.

There have been numerous experimental studies on human perception and misperception of self-motion and orientation relative to the earth, each focusing on one or a few types of motion. We present a formal framework encompassing many types of motion and including all angular and linear components of velocity and acceleration. Using a mathematically rigorous presentation, the framework defines the space of all possible motions, the map from motion to sensor status, the space containing each possible status of the sensors, and the map from sensor status to perceived motion. The shape of the full perceptual map from actual motion to perceived motion is investigated with the framework, using formal theory and a number of published experimental results. Two principles of simple motion perception and four principles of complex motion perception are presented. The framework also distinguishes the roles of physics and the nervous system in the process of self-motion perception for both simple and complex motions. The present rigorous development of the self-motion perception framework allows the scientist to compare and contrast results from many studies with differing types of motion. The six principles formalized here comprise a foundation with which to explain and predict perceptual phenomena, both those observed in the past and those to be encountered in the future. The framework is especially aimed to expand our capacity to investigate complex motions such as those encountered in everyday life or in unusual motion environments.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Scaphoid and lunate motion during a wrist dart throw motion.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to measure the in vitro scaphoid and lunate motion during 9 different variations of a wrist dart throw motion. Another goal was to determine the specific dart throw motion that minimized scaphoid and lunate motion. METHODS: Scaphoid and lunate motion were recorded in 7 cadaver forearms during various combinations of wrist dart throw motions caused by a wrist joint motion simulator. RESULTS: During wrist flexion and extension the scaphoid and lunate motions follow the wrist motion. During wrist radial and ulnar deviation the scaphoid and lunate correspondingly flex and extend. During intermediate motions the scaphoid and lunate move as little as 26% of the total third metacarpal motion and do not necessarily follow a planar motion. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there may be a dart throw motion during which there may be minimal scaphoid and lunate motion. If a subject's wrist motion could be clinically restricted to this dart throw motion, early hand mobility might be possible after surgery on the scaphoid and lunate.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Attentional modulation of threshold sensitivity to first-order motion and second-order motion patterns.

Previous studies [e.g. Vision Research 40 (2000) 173] have shown that when observers are required to selectively attend to one of two, spatially-adjacent patches containing either first-order (luminance-defined) or second-order (contrast-defined) motion, threshold sensitivity for identifying the direction of second-order motion, but not first-order motion, is enhanced for the attended stimuli. The processing of second-order motion, unlike first-order motion, may, therefore, require attention. However, other studies have found little evidence for differential effects of attention on the processing of first-order and second-order motion [Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 42(4) (2001) 5061]. We investigated the effects of attention instructions on the ability of observers to identify the directions and spatial orientations of luminance-defined and contrast-defined motion stimuli. Pairs of motion stimuli were presented simultaneously and threshold performance was measured over a wide range of drift temporal frequencies and stimulus durations. We found: (1) direction discrimination thresholds for attended motion stimuli were lower than those for unattended stimuli for both types of motion. The magnitude of this effect was reduced when the observers were not given prior knowledge of which patch of motion (attended or unattended) they had to judge first. (2) Direction discrimination for first-order motion was similarly affected at all temporal frequencies and durations examined, but for second-order motion the effects of attention depended critically on the drift temporal frequency and stimulus duration used. (3) Orientation discrimination showed little or no influence of attention instructions. Thus, whether or not attention influences the processing of second-order motion depends crucially on the precise stimulus parameters tested. Furthermore under appropriate conditions the processing of first-order motion is also influenced by attention, albeit to a lesser extent than second-order motion.

Attention↗
PubMed1997

A dynamic approach to spinal instability. Part I: Sensitization of intersegmental motion profiles to motion direction and load condition by instability.

STUDY DESIGN: Human lumbar functional spinal units (FSUs) were moved throughout their range of motion in sagittal and lateral bending while the dynamics of this movement were computed in vitro. Functional spinal units were tested intact and after subsequent discectomy and unilateral facetectomy. OBJECTIVE: To establish "normal" velocity and acceleration curves during lumbar intersegmental bending in the intact FSU and then evaluate the changes of this dynamic behavior due to surgically induced component instability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In preliminary clinical studies, researchers have provided evidence that dynamic motion measurements may be useful in the assessment of spinal impairment. METHODS: Human lumbar FSUs moved from extension to flexion, flexion to extension, left to right, and right to left a pure moment. Range of motion, as well as velocity and acceleration patterns of the main and coupled motions, were evaluated in six degrees of freedom by position changes of attached infrared light-emitting diodes recorded by cameras. Functional spinal units were tested in three surgical conditions (intact, discectomy, and unilateral facetectomy) under two preload conditions (no preload and 400 N preload). RESULTS: Motion of intact FSUs progressed with velocity and acceleration patterns that were relatively independent from motion direction and preload condition. After surgery, however, the dynamic motion became unequal between opposite motion directions (even if range of motion was equal between directions) and more sensitive to preload condition. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that equilibrium of dynamic motion parameters within a range of motion is an element of segmental stability. From this approach, segmental instability appears to change intersegmental acceleration and velocity patterns as a function of motion direction and load conditions. Whereas dynamic motion patterns in an intact FSU are relatively invariable between reversed motion directions, instability is characterized by a considerable diversity of dynamic motion parameters between reversed motion directions.

Acceleration↗
PubMed2001

Interaction of first- and second-order direction in motion-defined motion.

Motion-defined motion can play a special role in the discussion of whether one or two separate systems are required to process first- and second-order information because, in contrast to other second-order stimuli, such as contrast-modulated contours, motion detection cannot be explained by a simple input nonlinearity but requires preprocessing by motion detectors. Furthermore, the perceptual quality that defines an object (motion on the object surface) is identical to that which is attributed to the object as an emergent feature (motion of the object), raising the question of how these two object properties are linked. The interaction of first- and second-order information in such stimuli has been analyzed previously in a direction-discrimination task, revealing some cooperativity. Because any comprehensive integration of these two types of motion information should be reflected in the most fundamental property of a moving object, i.e., the direction in which it moves, we now investigate how motion direction is estimated in motion-defined objects. Observers had to report the direction of moving objects that were defined by luminance contrast or in random-dot kinematograms by differences in the spatiotemporal properties between the object region and the random-noise background. When the dots were moving coherently with the object (Fourier motion), direction sensitivity resembled that for luminance-defined objects, but performance deteriorated when the dots in the object region were static (drift-balanced motion). When the dots on the object surface were moving diagonally relative to the object direction (theta motion), the general level of accuracy declined further, and the perceived direction was intermediate between the veridical object motion direction and the direction of dot motion, indicating that the first- and second-order velocity vectors are somehow pooled. The inability to separate first- and second-order directional information suggests that the two corresponding subsystems of motion processing are not producing independent percepts and provides clues for possible implementations of the two-layer motion-processing network.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

A computer algorithm for representing spatial-temporal structure of human motion and a motion generalization method.

Inspired by the generalized motor program (GMP) theory, this study presents a symbolic motion structure representation (SMSR) algorithm that identifies a basic spatial-temporal structure of a human motion. The algorithm resolves each joint angle-time trajectory of a multi-joint motion into a sequence of elemental motion segments and labels each motion segment with a symbol representing its shape ("U": monotonically increasing; "D": monotonically decreasing; "S": stationary). By concatenating symbols according to their order in time, the spatial-temporal structure of a joint angle-time trajectory is represented as a symbolic string. The structure of a multi-joint motion is then represented as a set of symbolic strings. A sample motion, whose structure is identified by the SMSR algorithm, can be generalized to produce an infinite number of similar motion variants. To generate a variant of a sample motion, segment boundary points of the sample motion are first relocated to new locations in the angle-time space, and then individual motion segments of the original joint angle trajectories are shifted and proportionally rescaled to fit the new segment boundary points. This motion generalization method provides a basis for developing GMP-based motion simulation models, and exploring ideas and hypotheses related to the GMP theory through simulation. As an application of the motion generalization method, a motion modification (MoM) algorithm is presented, which adapts existing reach motions for new target locations. Some examples generated by the MoM algorithm are illustrated.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1993

Theta motion: a paradoxical stimulus to explore higher order motion extraction.

Apparent motion stimuli of increasing complexity have been applied to analyse the mechanisms underlying visual motion perception. In the present paper it is investigated how motion detectors respond to three classes of stimuli which are realized as random-dot kinematograms. (i) In the most conventional stimuli, Fourier motion, a group of dots is displaced coherently in a random-dot pattern. (ii) In drift-balanced motion stimuli a bar made of static random dots is shifted in front of another random-dot pattern. (iii) In the novel class of stimuli, theta motion, an object which is exclusively defined by dot motion into one direction, is moving itself into the opposite direction. It is shown in psychophysical experiments that human observers perceive the direction of object motion in all three classes of stimuli. Simple motion detectors, however, only extract the motion direction of the object in the case of Fourier stimuli, and in the case of drift-balanced stimuli, if a nonlinear preprocessing is assumed. Any of the model alternatives discussed so far just detects the moving dots but not the object in a theta-stimulus, as is illustrated by a combinatorial analysis using a simplified version of a motion detector of the correlation type, which operates on a discrete time scale and takes only discrete values. In order to account for the detection of theta-motion, a model consisting of two hierarchical layers of motion detectors is developed, and simulated for conditions as used in the psychophysical experiments. The perception of theta-motion and the two-layer model is discussed in relation to psychophysical data and theoretical considerations from the literature, to try to incorporate the proposed two-layer model into a general scheme of visual motion processing.

Computer Simulation↗
PubMed2003

Poor visibility of motion in depth is due to early motion averaging.

Under a variety of conditions, motion in depth from binocular cues is harder to detect than lateral motion in the frontoparallel plane. This is surprising, as the nasal-temporal motion in the left eye associated with motion in depth is easily detectable, as is the nasal-temporal motion in the right eye. It is only when the two motions are combined in binocular viewing that detection can become difficult. We previously suggested that the visibility of motion-in-depth is low because early stereomotion detectors average left and right retinal motions. For motion in depth, a neural averaging process would produce a motion signal close to zero. Here we tested the averaging hypothesis further. Specifically we asked, could the reduced visibility observed in previous experiments be associated with depth and layout in the stimuli, rather than motion averaging? We used anti-correlated random dot stereograms to show that, despite no depth being perceived, it is still harder to detect motion when it is presented in opposite directions in the two eyes than when motion is presented in the same direction in the two eyes. This suggests that the motion in depth signal is lost due to early motion averaging, rather than due to the presence of noise from the perceived depth patterns in the stimulus.

Depth Perception↗
PubMed1997

A neural model of high-level motion processing: line motion and formotion dynamics.

The percepts known variously as the line motion illusion, motion induction, and transformational apparent motion have attracted a great deal of experimental interest, since they sensitively probe interactions between preattentive and attentive vision processes. The present article develops a neural model that qualitatively explains essentially all the data reported thus far, and quantitatively simulates key illustrative percepts. The model suggests how these data arise from neural mechanisms of preattentive boundary and surface formation, long-range apparent motion, formotion interactions, and spatial attention. The boundary and surface formation processes model aspects of the interblob V1-->interstripe V2-->V4 and blob V1-->thin stripe V2-->V4 cortical processing streams, respectively. The long-range apparent motion process models aspects of the V1-->MT-->MST processing stream. An interstream V2-->MT form-motion interaction is proposed to allow the motion processing stream to track transient properties of emergent boundaries and filled-in surface colors from the form processing stream. It does so by generating motion waves using the long-range apparent motion process. This interstream interaction controls the formation of form-motion percepts, which are herein called formotion percepts. Other transients directly cause motion waves within the motion processing stream. All the data are attributed to properties of such motion waves. It is also suggested how bottom-up motion mechanisms can engage top-down attention as part of the motion capture process that solves the aperture problem. This interaction is proposed to occur between areas MT and MST. The model hereby explains how attention can be engaged even in percepts whose explanation can be derived from preattentive mechanisms.

Attention↗
PubMed2000

Visual perception of motion and 3-D structure from motion: an fMRI study.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to study the cortical bases of 3-D structure perception from visual motion in human. Nine subjects underwent three experiments designed to locate the areas involved in (i) motion processing (random motion versus static dots), (ii) coherent motion processing (expansion/ contraction versus random motion) and (iii) 3-D shape from motion reconstruction (3-D surface oscillating in depth versus random motion). Two control experiments tested the specific influence of speed distribution and surface curvature on the activation results. All stimuli consisted of random dots so that motion parallax was the only cue available for 3-D shape perception. As expected, random motion compared with static dots induced strong activity in areas V1/V2, V5+ and the superior occipital gyrus (SOG; presumptive V3/V3A). V1/V2 and V5+ showed no activity increase when comparing coherent motion (expansion or 3-D surface) with random motion. Conversely, V3/V3A and the dorsal parieto-occipital junction were highlighted in both comparisons and showed gradually increased activity for random motion, coherent motion and a curved surface rotating in depth, which suggests their involvement in the coding of 3-D shape from motion. Also, the ventral aspect of the left occipito-temporal junction was found to be equally responsive to random and coherent motion stimuli, but showed a specific sensitivity to curved 3-D surfaces compared with plane surfaces. As this region is already known to be involved in the coding of static object shape, our results suggest that it might integrate various cues for the perception of 3-D shape.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Motion correction and the use of motion covariates in multiple-subject fMRI analysis.

The impact of using motion estimates as covariates of no interest was examined in general linear modeling (GLM) of both block design and rapid event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data. The purpose of motion correction is to identify and eliminate artifacts caused by task-correlated motion while maximizing sensitivity to true activations. To optimize this process, a combination of motion correction approaches was applied to data from 33 subjects performing both a block-design and an event-related fMRI experiment, including analysis: (1) without motion correction; (2) with motion correction alone; (3) with motion-corrected data and motion covariates included in the GLM; and (4) with non-motion-corrected data and motion covariates included in the GLM. Inclusion of covariates was found to be generally useful for increasing the sensitivity of GLM results in the analysis of event-related data. When motion parameters were included in the GLM for event-related data, it made little difference if motion correction was actually applied to the data. For the block design, inclusion of motion covariates had a deleterious impact on GLM sensitivity when even moderate correlation existed between motion and the experimental design. Based on these results, we present a general strategy for block designs, event-related designs, and hybrid designs to identify and eliminate probable motion artifacts while maximizing sensitivity to true activations.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

The distinction between eye and object motion is reflected by the motion-onset visual evoked potential.

Humans are able to distinguish eye movement-induced retinal image motion and physical object motion during smooth pursuit eye movements. We investigated the neurophysiological basis of this ability by comparing motion-onset visual evoked potentials (VEPs) to onset of: (1) physical object motion during fixation, (2) eye movement-induced retinal image motion, and (3) physical object motion during eye movements. Electro-oculographic (EOG) artifacts were removed and the influence of eye-movement quality was evaluated. Retinal image shift was of similar magnitude in all conditions (9 degrees /s) and elicited typical motion-onset VEPs, with N2 at occipital and P2 at central derivations. During smooth pursuit, physical object motion induced N2 and P2 of higher latencies than during fixation. In the absence of physical object motion, i.e., for exclusively eye movement-induced retinal image motion, the N2 amplitude was reduced. This is taken as evidence that the activity of detectors of physical object motion is reflected by a part of the N2 component. N2 also reflects eye movement-induced retinal image motion. It is concluded that headcentric motion detection and the detection of eye movement-induced retinal image motion is mediated by brain mechanisms with similar latencies and, within the resolution limits of VEPs, at similar locations.

Electroencephalography↗
PubMed1994

Evidence for separate motion-detecting mechanisms for first- and second-order motion in human vision.

Current theories of second-order motion perception postulate that such motion is detected by either a high-level mechanism which computes the temporal correspondences between "features" extracted from the image, or low-level motion mechanisms which operate on a nonlinear, neural transformation of the luminance profile of the image. Theories which favour the latter strategy either suggest that first- and second-order motion are detected by a common mechanism or else that distinct mechanisms exist for the two types of motion, both operating on similar principles. The aim of this study was to differentiate between these possibilities. Observers were required to judge the direction of multiframe motion sequences in which the frames alternated between sinusoidal variations in luminance (first order) and similar variations in contrast (second order). On each frame the modulation signal was displaced by some fraction of its spatial period. The motion sequences were designed such that integration of both types of frame (first and second order) would lead to unambiguous motion in a particular direction whilst separate analysis of first- or second-order frames alone would yield ambiguous motion. The results show clearly that observers were unable to integrate the first- and second-order frames of such motion sequences. However, when observers were presented with motion sequences in which the frames alternated between two, different types of second-order image (variations in the contrast or size of the elements constituting a random noise field) perceived direction was always consistent with integration of both image types. This is taken as support for models that suggest that first- and second-order motion are processed by distinct mechanisms in the visual system and that each mechanism is only sensitive to one type of motion. It is suggested that several varieties of second-order motion stimuli may be regarded as equivalent to contrast-modulated images when considered in terms of the effects of local spatiotemporal filtering operations carried out by the human visual system. In this respect, our results are consistent with the "texture grabber" concept of Werkhoven, Sperling and Chubb [(1993) Vision Research, 33, 463-485].

Contrast Sensitivity↗