Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Form from motion parallax and form from luminance contrast: Vernier discrimination

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Spatial Vision
For more content, see Multisensory Research and Seeing and Perceiving.

Some objects are perfectly camouflaged when stationary, but are clearly visible when moving; the boundaries of such an object are defined entirely by motion parallax. Little is known about the eye's ability to make spatial discriminations between motion-defined objects. In this study, subjects viewed a pseudorandom pattern of dots within which a camouflaged bar was made visible by relative motion of dots. Vernier acuity for the motion-defined bar was 27-45 sec arc for three subjects, much less than the interdot separation of 360 sec arc, much less than the 2 deg receptive field size for motion, and comparable with the foveal intercone separation of 30 sec arc. It is proposed that an opponent-orientation process and an opponent-position process can both contribute to vernier judgements for motion-defined objects. Real-world motion contrast commonly confounds the following cues for figure-ground segregation: (1) different texture velocities on either side of the figure's boundary; (2) in any given time interval, texture in figure and ground moves different distances; and (3) texture continually appears and disappears along the figure's boundary. When cues (2) and (3) were eliminated, thus ensuring figure-ground segregation was achieved entirely by motion-sensitive neural elements, vernier acuity was 44 ± 5 sec arc compared with 36 ± 8 sec arc for a dotted bar defined by luminance contrast. Conclusion: Vernier acuity for a dotted bar whose boundary was defined entirely by motion-sensitive neural elements was similar to vernier acuity for a dotted bar whose boundary was defined by luminance contrast.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Ophthalmology, Dalhousie University, Gerard Hall, 5303 Morris Street, Halifax, Canada B3J 1B6

10.1163/156856886X00106
/content/journals/10.1163/156856886x00106
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156856886x00106
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/156856886x00106
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156856886x00106
1986-01-01
2016-12-10

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Spatial Vision — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation