Optimal Smoothing in Visual Motion Perception

When a flash is aligned with a moving object, subjects perceive the flash to lag behind the moving object. Two different models have been proposed to explain this flash-lag effect. In the motion extrapolation model, the visual system extrapolates the location of the moving object to counteract neural propagation delays, whereas in the latency difference model, it is hypothesized that moving objects are processed and perceived more quickly than flashed objects. However, recent psychophysical experiments suggest that neither of these interpretations is feasible (Eagleman & Sejnowski, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c), hypothesizing instead that the visual system uses data from the future of an event before committing to an interpretation. We formalize this idea in terms of the statistical framework of optimal smoothing and show that a model based on smoothing accounts for the shape of psychometric curves from a flash-lag experiment involving random reversals of motion direction. The smoothing model demonstrates how the visual system may enhance perceptual accuracy by relying not only on data from the past but also on data collected from the immediate future of an event.

[1]  D. Mackay.  Perceptual Stability of a Stroboscopically Lit Visual Field containing Self-Luminous Objects , 1958, Nature.

[2]  R. E. Kalman,et al.  A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems , 2002 .

[3]  Arthur E. Bryson,et al.  Applied Optimal Control , 1969 .

[4]  P. A. Kolers,et al.  Shape and color in apparent motion , 1976, Vision Research.

[5]  R. Shumway,et al.  AN APPROACH TO TIME SERIES SMOOTHING AND FORECASTING USING THE EM ALGORITHM , 1982 .

[6]  Biing-Hwang Juang,et al.  Fundamentals of speech recognition , 1993, Prentice Hall signal processing series.

[7]  William T. Freeman,et al.  The generic viewpoint assumption in a framework for visual perception , 1994, Nature.

[8]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Motion extrapolation in catching , 1994, Nature.

[9]  Joel L. Davis,et al.  Large-Scale Neuronal Theories of the Brain , 1994 .

[10]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Extrapolation or attention shift? , 1995, Nature.

[11]  Stanley A. Klein,et al.  Extrapolation or attention shift? , 1995, Nature.

[12]  David Mumford,et al.  Neuronal Architectures for Pattern-theoretic Problems , 1995 .

[13]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Parameter estimation for linear dynamical systems , 1996 .

[14]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Varieties of Helmholtz Machine , 1996, Neural Networks.

[15]  R. Nijhawan,et al.  Visual decomposition of colour through motion extrapolation , 1997, Nature.

[16]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Dynamic Model of Visual Recognition Predicts Neural Response Properties in the Visual Cortex , 1997, Neural Computation.

[17]  I. Murakami,et al.  Latency difference, not spatial extrapolation , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[18]  M. Lappe,et al.  The position of moving objects. , 2000, Perception.

[19]  Gopathy Purushothaman,et al.  Moving ahead through differential visual latency , 1998, Nature.

[20]  Yee Whye Teh,et al.  Learning to Parse Images , 1999, NIPS.

[21]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  An optimal estimation approach to visual perception and learning , 1999, Vision Research.

[22]  T J Sejnowski,et al.  Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness. , 2000, Science.

[23]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Illusory spatial offset of a flash relative to a moving stimulus is caused by differential latencies for moving and flashed stimuli , 2000, Vision Research.

[24]  E. Brenner,et al.  Motion extrapolation is not responsible for the flash–lag effect , 2000, Vision Research.

[25]  Markus Lappe,et al.  A model of the perceived relative positions of moving objects based upon a slow averaging process , 2000, Vision Research.

[26]  H. Bedell,et al.  Flash-lag effect: differential latency, not postdiction. , 2000, Science.

[27]  I. Murakami,et al.  A flash-lag effect in random motion , 2001, Vision Research.

[28]  N. Grzywacz,et al.  Temporal coherence in visual rotation , 2002, Vision Research.

[29]  S. Nishida,et al.  Marker Correspondence, Not Processing Latency, Determines Temporal Binding of Visual Attributes , 2002, Current Biology.

[30]  R. Nijhawan,et al.  Neural delays, visual motion and the flash-lag effect , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.