Abstract
In this study, we examined the operation of first- and second-order motion mechanisms with respect to object tracking using dichoptic presentation. A bistable apparent motion stimulus composed of four rectangles arranged in square- and diamond-shapes in every other frame was presented binocularly, monocularly, or dichoptically using a stereoscope. Since past motion studies showed that the first-order motion mechanism cannot function under dichoptic stimulation, we evaluated the upper temporal frequency limits of object tracking with dichoptic presentation and compared these results with those obtained with ordinary binocular or monocular (nondichoptic) presentation. We found that the temporal limits were 4 -5 Hz, regardless of the viewing conditions. These limits are similar to those for within-attribute (first- and second-order) object tracking (4 -5 Hz) obtained in our previous study. Thus, this putative mechanism may be responsible for object tracking, based only on second-order components, even in the case of first-order stimuli.
Highlights
Kanaya and Sato (2012) investigated the temporal characteristics of object tracking (e.g., Verstraten, Cavanagh, & Labianca, 2000) using bistable apparent motion stimuli defined by the same or different visual attributes, such as luminance, motion, binocular disparity, flicker, and contrast
Our one-way, repeated measures analysis of variance test indicated that the main effect of viewing type was not significant, F(2, 8) 1⁄4 1.16, ns. These results suggest that the temporal characteristics of dichoptic presentations in object tracking were almost the same as those for binocular and monocular presentations
It was found that temporal limits of apparent motion perception (5–6 Hz) were similar to those values and again much lower than that for first-order motion detection
Summary
Kanaya and Sato (2012) investigated the temporal characteristics of object tracking (e.g., Verstraten, Cavanagh, & Labianca, 2000) using bistable apparent motion stimuli defined by the same or different visual attributes (within- or cross-attribute motion), such as luminance, motion, binocular disparity, flicker, and contrast. Bistable apparent motion stimuli generated by frames each defined by different attributes are not detected by lower level motion mechanisms but detected by a complicated, higher order processes in which each attribute stimulus is allocated on a saliency map by selecting a salient feature using attention (e.g., Lu & Sperling, 1995a, 2001). Within-attribute motion can be detected by lower level motion mechanisms such as first- or second-order motion mechanisms. With respect to object tracking using within-attribute motion, upper temporal limits for first-order stimuli were lower than that for first-order motion detection and were much the same as those for second-order stimuli
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
