June 2007
Volume 7, Issue 9
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2007
Motion capture is motion integration
Author Affiliations
  • Alex Huk
    Neurobiology & Center for Perceptual Systems, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Jeremy Freeman
    Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College
  • Frank Durgin
    Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College
Journal of Vision June 2007, Vol.7, 397. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/7.9.397
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Alex Huk, Jeremy Freeman, Frank Durgin; Motion capture is motion integration. Journal of Vision 2007;7(9):397. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/7.9.397.

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

The phenomenon of “motion capture” has been described as a suppression of the motion of high spatial-frequency (SF) elements in favor of the motion of low SF components, allowing larger forms to capture their smaller features when they move (e.g., Ramachandran, 1990). However, recent evidence suggests that motion capture might not reflect active suppression of high SF signals, but instead is simply an instance of weighted combination of high and low SF signals (Durgin, Freeman, Huk, VSS 2005). Here we show that increasing the contrast (and thus the motion energy) of high SF components allows them to “capture” the low SF components, thus arguing against the need for the specialized motion capture mechanism originally posited. We utilized displays in which we independently manipulated the contrast and speeds of two superimposed motion components, consisting of randomly scattered 2D Gaussian elements of two different sizes (low-SF and high-SF). Participants were instructed to judge the speed of either the high-SF or low-SF elements relative to a standard speed (2.5 deg/sec). The irrelevant (unjudged) elements moved either 75%, 100%, or 125% of the standard speed. The contrast of the low-SF elements was always 20%; the contrast of the high-SF elements was either 20% or 80%. We measured the actual speed of the relevant elements necessary to perceptually match the standard speed (for each irrelevant element speed). When nominal contrasts were equal, the low-SF elements exerted larger effects on the perceived speed of the high-SF elements than vice versa. But when the high-SF elements were higher in contrast the relative weights reversed. A generic model of weighted motion integration accounts for both traditional motion capture as well as for the reversed capture of low SF components by high SF elements.

Huk, A. Freeman, J. Durgin, F. (2007). Motion capture is motion integration [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 7(9):397, 397a, http://journalofvision.org/7/9/397/, doi:10.1167/7.9.397. [CrossRef]

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.