October 2003
Volume 3, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   October 2003
Comparison of two methods for equating the salience of first- and second-order motion
Author Affiliations
  • Anne-Sophie Del Vecchio
    Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, Que, Canada
Journal of Vision October 2003, Vol.3, 867. doi:10.1167/3.9.867
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Anne-Sophie Del Vecchio, Michael W. Grünau; Comparison of two methods for equating the salience of first- and second-order motion. Journal of Vision 2003;3(9):867. doi: 10.1167/3.9.867.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose. An important issue for studies comparing attentional selection of first- and second-order motion stimuli is how to equate both components. Methods. One way is to present a series of counterphase gratings (mixture of 1st- and 2nd order), with variable luminance contrast for the 1st-order stimulus, and to derive the contrast that corresponds to the 50% threshold for perceived direction of the overall stimulus. Another method is to present a transparent plaid made-up of a mixture of a 1st- and a 2nd-order grating for a discrete time and ask the participant to continuously monitor which grating appears in front. The contrast of the 1st-order stimulus is varied to obtain the 50% threshold corresponding to equal cumulative time for both components. In the present study, both methods for equating 1st- and 2nd-order motion were compared. Since the 2nd-order grating consisted of texture modulation, random noise can be added to the 1st-order component in order to increase the similarity of the components. This effect of random noise was also investigated. Results. When noise was included in the 1st-order component, the 50 % thresholds between 1st- and 2nd-order components were not statistically different for the plaid and the grating methods. The grating method without the noise in the 1st-order component was also equivalent. Only the plaid method without noise in the 1st-order component required significantly higher luminance contrast for the 1st-order component to match the 2nd-order component. Conclusions. Both methods are acceptable in order to equate 1st- and 2nd-order components as long as noise is included in the 1st-order component.

Del Vecchio, A.-S. D., von  Grünau, M. W.(2003). Comparison of two methods for equating the salience of first- and second-order motion [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 3( 9): 867, 867a, http://journalofvision.org/3/9/867/, doi:10.1167/3.9.867. [CrossRef]
Footnotes
 Supported by NSERC and FCAR (MvG).
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×