The perception of motion smear during eye and head movements

Abstract

Because the visual system integrates information across time, an image that moves on the retina would be expected to be perceived as smeared. In this article, we summarize the previous evidence that human observers perceive a smaller extent of smear when retinal image motion results from an eye or head movement, compared to when a physically moving target generates comparable image motion while the eyes and head are still. This evidence indicates that the reduction of perceived motion smear is asymmetrical, occurring only for targets that move against the direction of an eye or head movement. In addition, we present new data to show that no reduction of perceived motion smear occurs for targets that move in either direction during a visually-induced perception of self motion. We propose that low-level extra-retinal eye- and head-movement signals are responsible for the reduction of perceived motion smear, by decreasing the duration of the temporal impulse response. Although retinal as well as extra-retinal mechanisms can reduce the extent of perceived motion smear, available evidence suggests that improved visual functioning may occur only when an extra-retinal mechanism reduces the perception of smear.

Is the perceived present a predictive model of the objective present?

“…This has important implications for perception of a moving object: if a projectile is moving at 90 mph, then the most recent available information about the ball's orientation is about 8 feet behind the most recent available information about its colour, so there should be a percept of orientation lagging about 8 feet behind a percept of colour. This is not the case: several studies have shown that percepts of objects moving across the visual field are sharp, clear, and unified at a single location, more so than would be expected from the temporal resolution of visual processing (Bedell, Tong, & Aydin, 2010;Burr, 1980;Marinovic & Arnold, 2013;Ramachandran, Madhusudhan, & Vidyasagar, 1974;Scharnowski, Hermens, Kammer, Öğmen, & Herzog, 2007;Tong, Patel, & Bedell, 2005;Westerink & Teunissen, 1995). This shows that feature information is bound into a synchronous, coherent percept.…”

Eye movements: The past 25years

“…This review will focus on perceptual localization around the time of saccades. There have also been related lines of work on the perception of location and motion during smooth pursuit eye movements (for example, Brenner, Smeets & Van den Berg, 2001; Kerzel, Pilar, Ziegler & Brenner, 2006; Turano & Massof, 2001; Freeman, Champion & Warren, 2010; Bedell, Tong & Aydin, 2010) and on the perception of location and depth during vergence eye movements (e.g., Erkelens & Van Ee, 1998; Zhang, Cantor & Schor, 2010). …”

Motion deblurring during pursuit tracking improves spatial-interval acuity

“…In the present study, observers specified the spatial separation during fixation and pursuit for which the motion blur from the leading line of the spatial-interval stimulus was perceived to extend completely across the spatial gap between the two lines. Because the extent of perceived motion smear is reduced in the presence of nearby moving targets (Di Lollo & Hogben, 1985; Chen et al, 1995; Bedell et al, 2010), the results shown in Figure 4 are likely to underestimate the extent of perceived motion blur that would be produced by an isolated moving line. Nevertheless, for comparable speeds of retinal image motion for the two-line spatial-interval stimulus, our observers reported a greater extent of perceived motion blur during fixation than pursuit, in agreement with earlier results.…”

“…Because of visual persistence, a moving retinal image frequently is accompanied by the perception of motion blur (e.g., Bidwell, 1899; McDougall, 1904). However, under some viewing conditions the extent of perceived motion blur is less than would be expected from the duration of visual persistence (Burr, 1980; Chen, Bedell & Ögmen, 1995; Bedell & Lott, 1996; Bedell, Tong & Aydin, 2010). For complex moving targets, the reduction of perceived motion blur has been attributed to spatio-temporal interactions between the individual moving elements (Di Lollo & Hogben, 1985; Chen et al 1995; Purushothaman, Ögmen, Chen & Bedell, 1998).…”

“…For complex moving targets, the reduction of perceived motion blur has been attributed to spatio-temporal interactions between the individual moving elements (Di Lollo & Hogben, 1985; Chen et al 1995; Purushothaman, Ögmen, Chen & Bedell, 1998). When motion of the retinal image is produced by the observer’s own eye or head movements, a reduction of perceived motion blur is attributed to the influence of extra-retinal signals (for review, see Bedell et al, 2010). This interpretation is supported by the observation that the extent of perceived blur depends on the direction of relative motion between the target and the eyes or the head (Tong, Patel & Bedell, 2005; 2006; Tong, Aydin & Bedell, 2007a; Bedell & Tong, 2009).…”