TY - JOUR
T1 - Asymmetries in the discrimination of motion direction around the visual field
AU - Ezzo, Rania
AU - Winawer, Jonathan
AU - Carrasco-Queijeiro, Marisa
AU - Rokers, Bas
PY - 2023/3/1
Y1 - 2023/3/1
N2 - The discriminability of motion direction is asymmetric, with some motion directions that are better discriminated than others. For example, discrimination of directions near the cardinal axes (upward/downward/leftward/rightward) tends to be better than oblique directions. Here, we tested discriminability for multiple motion directions at multiple polar angle locations. We found three systematic asymmetries. First, we found a large cardinal advantage in a cartesian reference frame - better discriminability for motion near cardinal reference directions than oblique directions. Second, we found a moderate cardinal advantage in a polar reference frame - better discriminability for motion near radial (inward/outward) and tangential (clockwise/counterclockwise) reference directions than other directions. Third, we found a small advantage for discriminating motion near radial compared to tangential reference directions. The three advantages combine in an approximately linear manner, and together predict variation in motion discrimination as a function of both motion direction and location around the visual field. For example, best performance is found for radial motion on the horizontal and vertical meridians, as these directions encompass all three advantages, whereas poorest performance is found for oblique motion stimuli located on the horizontal and vertical meridians, as these directions encompass all three disadvantages. Our results constrain models of motion perception and suggest that reference frames at multiple stages of the visual processing hierarchy limit performance.
AB - The discriminability of motion direction is asymmetric, with some motion directions that are better discriminated than others. For example, discrimination of directions near the cardinal axes (upward/downward/leftward/rightward) tends to be better than oblique directions. Here, we tested discriminability for multiple motion directions at multiple polar angle locations. We found three systematic asymmetries. First, we found a large cardinal advantage in a cartesian reference frame - better discriminability for motion near cardinal reference directions than oblique directions. Second, we found a moderate cardinal advantage in a polar reference frame - better discriminability for motion near radial (inward/outward) and tangential (clockwise/counterclockwise) reference directions than other directions. Third, we found a small advantage for discriminating motion near radial compared to tangential reference directions. The three advantages combine in an approximately linear manner, and together predict variation in motion discrimination as a function of both motion direction and location around the visual field. For example, best performance is found for radial motion on the horizontal and vertical meridians, as these directions encompass all three advantages, whereas poorest performance is found for oblique motion stimuli located on the horizontal and vertical meridians, as these directions encompass all three disadvantages. Our results constrain models of motion perception and suggest that reference frames at multiple stages of the visual processing hierarchy limit performance.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151573509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85151573509&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1167/jov.23.3.19
DO - 10.1167/jov.23.3.19
M3 - Article
C2 - 36995280
AN - SCOPUS:85151573509
SN - 1534-7362
VL - 23
SP - 19
JO - Journal of Vision
JF - Journal of Vision
IS - 3
ER -