Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive Fields

According to current models of motion detection, cortical motion sensors are tuned in both space and time to create spatiotemporally-oriented receptive fields. Motion direction is encoded by summing activity across sensors tuned to the same direction, and subtracting the outputs of sensors tuned to...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: George Mather, Kirsten Challinor
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2011-05-01
Series:i-Perception
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1068/ic412
id doaj-827907535a434ef4be83bcd424cd3c9a
record_format Article
spelling doaj-827907535a434ef4be83bcd424cd3c9a2020-11-25T03:09:35ZengSAGE Publishingi-Perception2041-66952011-05-01210.1068/ic41210.1068_ic412Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive FieldsGeorge Mather0Kirsten Challinor1School of Psychology, University of SussexSchool of Psychology, University of SussexAccording to current models of motion detection, cortical motion sensors are tuned in both space and time to create spatiotemporally-oriented receptive fields. Motion direction is encoded by summing activity across sensors tuned to the same direction, and subtracting the outputs of sensors tuned to different directions. A psychophysical adaptation experiment tested for (i) subtractive interactions between sensors tuned to different directions and (ii) spatiotemporal tuning in motion sensing receptive fields. Participants viewed a counter-phase stimulus containing superimposed saw-tooth gratings moving in opposite directions. The contrast of one grating (pedestal) was fixed, while the contrast of the other (test) was varied to establish a motion null (no net apparent motion in the counter-phase). After adapting to a single grating drifting in the same direction as the test component, more test contrast was required to achieve a null relative to baseline. After adapting to a grating drifting in the opposite direction to the test component, less contrast was required to achieve a null. When both adapting and test gratings were counter-phase gratings, a small degree of test contrast threshold elevation was found which depended on the spatiotemporal phases of adapting and test components, consistent with spatiotemporally tuned motion sensor receptive fields.https://doi.org/10.1068/ic412
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author George Mather
Kirsten Challinor
spellingShingle George Mather
Kirsten Challinor
Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive Fields
i-Perception
author_facet George Mather
Kirsten Challinor
author_sort George Mather
title Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive Fields
title_short Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive Fields
title_full Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive Fields
title_fullStr Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive Fields
title_full_unstemmed Psychophysical Evidence for Spatiotemporal Tuning in Human Motion Sensing Receptive Fields
title_sort psychophysical evidence for spatiotemporal tuning in human motion sensing receptive fields
publisher SAGE Publishing
series i-Perception
issn 2041-6695
publishDate 2011-05-01
description According to current models of motion detection, cortical motion sensors are tuned in both space and time to create spatiotemporally-oriented receptive fields. Motion direction is encoded by summing activity across sensors tuned to the same direction, and subtracting the outputs of sensors tuned to different directions. A psychophysical adaptation experiment tested for (i) subtractive interactions between sensors tuned to different directions and (ii) spatiotemporal tuning in motion sensing receptive fields. Participants viewed a counter-phase stimulus containing superimposed saw-tooth gratings moving in opposite directions. The contrast of one grating (pedestal) was fixed, while the contrast of the other (test) was varied to establish a motion null (no net apparent motion in the counter-phase). After adapting to a single grating drifting in the same direction as the test component, more test contrast was required to achieve a null relative to baseline. After adapting to a grating drifting in the opposite direction to the test component, less contrast was required to achieve a null. When both adapting and test gratings were counter-phase gratings, a small degree of test contrast threshold elevation was found which depended on the spatiotemporal phases of adapting and test components, consistent with spatiotemporally tuned motion sensor receptive fields.
url https://doi.org/10.1068/ic412
work_keys_str_mv AT georgemather psychophysicalevidenceforspatiotemporaltuninginhumanmotionsensingreceptivefields
AT kirstenchallinor psychophysicalevidenceforspatiotemporaltuninginhumanmotionsensingreceptivefields
_version_ 1724661783842521088