In this communication we ask whether mechanisms that encode curvature are selective to motion direction. The question is pertinent because different considerations concerning the relationship between motion and curvature lead to different expected outcomes. One outcome is predicated on the idea that shape-processing is not only a multi-stage process following a hierarchy from simple to complex shapes (Connor, Brincat, & Pasupathy,
2007; Gallant, Braun, & Van Essen,
1993; Gallant, Connor, Rakshit, Lewis, & Van Essen,
1996; Habak, Wilkinson, Zakher, & Wilson,
2004; Levi & Klein,
2000; Missal, Vogels, Li, & Orban,
1999; Murray, Kersten, Olshausen, Schrater, & Woods,
2002; Pasupathy & Connor,
2001,
2002; Regan & Hamstra,
1992; Tanaka,
1996; Wilkinson, Wilson, & Habak,
1998), but that as one proceeds though the shape-processing hierarchy, information about non-shape stimulus attributes such as luminance contrast, color contrast, contrast polarity, luminance spatial frequency, motion direction and depth is gradually discarded in order to make the higher stages of shape processing invariant to these attributes (Anderson, Habak, Wilkinson, & Wilson,
2007; Bell & Kingdom,
2009; Gheorghiu, Kingdom, Thai, & Sampasivam,
2009; Ito, Tamura, Fujita, & Tanaka,
1995; Mysore et al.,
2006). For example curvature processing is not tuned to stereoscopic depth, suggesting that stereoscopic depth is discarded by the middle stages of the shape-processing hierarchy (Gheorghiu et al.,
2009). On these grounds therefore we might expect curvature processing to be
non-selective to motion direction.