Aubert-Fleischl Phenomenon Research Articles

Does the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon affect perceived object speed in realistic virtual scenes?

Does the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon affect perceived object speed in realistic virtual scenes?

Illusory changes in the perceived speed of motion derived from proprioception and touch.

In vision, the perceived velocity of a moving stimulus differs depending on whether we pursue it with the eyes or not: A stimulus moving across the retina with the eyes stationary is perceived as being faster compared with a stimulus of the same physical speed that the observer pursues with the eyes, while its retinal motion is zero. This effect is known as the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon. Here, we describe an analog phenomenon in touch. We asked participants to estimate the speed of a moving stimulus either from tactile motion only (i.e., motion across the skin), while keeping the hand world stationary, or from kinesthesia only by tracking the stimulus with a guided arm movement, such that the tactile motion on the finger was zero (i.e., only finger motion but no movement across the skin). Participants overestimated the velocity of the stimulus determined from tactile motion compared with kinesthesia in analogy with the visual Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon. In two follow-up experiments, we manipulated the stimulus noise by changing the texture of the touched surface. Similarly to the visual phenomenon, this significantly affected the strength of the illusion. This study supports the hypothesis of shared computations for motion processing between vision and touch.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In vision, the perceived velocity of a moving stimulus is different depending on whether we pursue it with the eyes or not, an effect known as the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon. We describe an analog phenomenon in touch. We asked participants to estimate the speed of a moving stimulus either from tactile motion or by pursuing it with the hand. Participants overestimated the stimulus velocity measured from tactile motion compared with kinesthesia, in analogy with the visual Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon.

Insufficient compensation for self-motion during perception of object speed: The vestibular Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon.

To estimate object speed with respect to the self, retinal signals must be summed with extraretinal signals that encode the speed of eye and head movement. Prior work has shown that differences in perceptual estimates of object speed based on retinal and oculomotor signals lead to biased percepts such as the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon (AF), in which moving targets appear slower when pursued. During whole-body movement, additional extraretinal signals, such as those from the vestibular system, may be used to transform object speed estimates from a head-centered to a world-centered reference frame. Here we demonstrate that whole-body pursuit in the form of passive yaw rotation, which stimulates the semicircular canals of the vestibular system, leads to a slowing of perceived object speed similar to the classic oculomotor AF. We find that the magnitude of the vestibular and oculomotor AF is comparable across a range of speeds, despite the different types of input signal involved. This covariation might hint at a common modality-independent mechanism underlying the AF in both cases.

A Bayesian Model of Perceived Head-Centered Velocity during Smooth Pursuit Eye Movement

SummaryDuring smooth pursuit eye movement, observers often misperceive velocity. Pursued stimuli appear slower (Aubert-Fleishl phenomenon [1, 2]), stationary objects appear to move (Filehne illusion [3]), the perceived direction of moving objects is distorted (trajectory misperception [4]), and self-motion veers away from its true path (e.g., the slalom illusion [5]). Each illusion demonstrates that eye speed is underestimated with respect to image speed, a finding that has been taken as evidence of early sensory signals that differ in accuracy [4, 6–11]. Here we present an alternative Bayesian account, based on the idea that perceptual estimates are increasingly influenced by prior expectations as signals become more uncertain [12–15]. We show that the speeds of pursued stimuli are more difficult to discriminate than fixated stimuli. Observers are therefore less certain about motion signals encoding the speed of pursued stimuli, a finding we use to quantify the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon based on the assumption that the prior for motion is centered on zero [16–20]. In doing so, we reveal an important property currently overlooked by Bayesian models of motion perception. Two Bayes estimates are needed at a relatively early stage in processing, one for pursued targets and one for image motion.

Optokinetic potential and the perception of head-centred speed

Extra-retinal information about eye velocity is thought to play an important role in compensating the retinal motion experienced during an eye movement. Evidently this compensation process is prone to error, since stimulus properties such as contrast and spatial frequency have marked effect on perceived motion with respect to the head. Here we investigate the suggestion, that ‘optokinetic potential’ [Perception 14 (1985) 631] may contribute to an explanation of these errors. First, we measured the optokinetic nystagmus induced by each stimulus so as to determine the optokinetic potential. Second, we determined the speed match between two patches of Gaussian blobs presented sequentially. Observers pursued the first pattern and kept their eyes stationary when viewing the second. For stimuli with identical contrast or spatial frequency, the pursued pattern was perceived to move slower than the non-pursued pattern (the Aubert–Fleischl phenomenon). Lowering the contrast or the spatial frequency of the non-pursued pattern resulted in a systematic decrease of its perceived speed. A further condition in which the contrast or spatial frequency of the pursued pattern was varied, resulted in no change to its perceived speed. Pursuit eye movements were recorded and found to be independent of stimulus properties. The results cast doubt on the idea that changing contrast or spatial frequency affects perceived head-centred speed by altering optokinetic potential.

Head-centred motion perception in the ageing visual system.

Stationary objects appear to move in the opposite direction to a pursuit eye movement (Filehne illusion) and moving objects appear slower when pursued (Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon). Both illusions imply that extra-retinal, eye-velocity signals lead to lower estimates of speed than corresponding retinal motion signals. Intriguingly, the velocity (i.e. speed and direction) of the Filehne illusion depends on the age of the observer, especially for brief display durations (Wertheim and Bekkering, 1992). This suggests relative signal size changes as the visual system matures. To test the signal-size hypothesis, we compared the Filehne illusion and Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon in young and old observers using short and long display durations. The trends in the Filehne data were similar to those reported by Wertheim and Bekkering. However, we found no evidence for an effect of age or duration in the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon. The differences between the two illusions could not be reconciled on the basis of actual eye movements made. The findings suggest a more complicated explanation of the combined influence of age and duration on head-centred motion perception than that described by the signal-size hypothesis.

Transducer models of head-centred motion perception

By adding retinal and pursuit eye-movement velocity one can determine the motion of an object with respect to the head. It would seem likely that the visual system carries out a similar computation by summing extra-retinal, eye-velocity signals with retinal motion signals. Perceived head-centred motion may therefore be determined by differences in the way these signals encode speed. For example, if extra-retinal signals provide the lower estimate of speed then moving objects will appear slower when pursued (Aubert–Fleischl phenomenon) and stationary objects will move opposite to an eye movement (Filehne illusion). Most previous work proposes that these illusions exist because retinal signals encode retinal motion accurately while extra-retinal signals under-estimate eye speed. A more general model is presented in which both signals could be in error. Two types of input/output speed relationship are examined. The first uses linear speed transducers and the second non-linear speed transducers, the latter based on power laws. It is shown that studies of the Aubert–Fleischl phenomenon and Filehne illusion reveal the gain ratio or power ratio alone. We also consider general velocity-matching and show that in theory matching functions are limited by gain ratio in the linear case. However, in the non-linear case individual transducer shapes are revealed albeit up to an unknown scaling factor. The experiments show that the Aubert–Fleischl phenomenon and Filehne illusion are adequately described by linear speed transducers with a gain ratio less than one. For some observers, this is also the case in general velocity-matching experiments. For other observers, however, behaviour is non-linear and, according to the transducer model, indicates the existence of expansive non-linearities in speed encoding. This surprising result is discussed in relation to other theories of head-centred motion perception and the possible strategies some observers might adopt when judging stimulus motion during an eye movement.

Unequal retinal and extra-retinal motion signals produce different perceived slants of moving surfaces

Eye movements introduce retinal motion to the image and so affect motion cues to depth. For instance, the slant of a plane moving at right-angles to the observer is specified by translation and a component of relative motion such as shear. To a close approximation, the translation disappears from the image when the eye tracks the surface accurately with a pursuit eye movement. However, both translation and relative-motion components are needed to estimate slant accurately and unambiguously. During pursuit, therefore, an extra-retinal estimate of translation must be used by the observer to estimate surface slant. Extra-retinal and retinal estimates of translation speed are known to differ: a classic Aubert–Fleischl phenomenon was found for our stimuli. The decrease in perceived speed during pursuit predicts a corresponding increase in perceived slant when the eye tracks the surface. This was confirmed by comparing perceived slant in pursuit and eye-stationary conditions using slant-matching and slant-estimation techniques. Moreover, the increase in perceived slant could be quantified solely on the basis of the perceived-speed data. We found no evidence that relative-motion estimates change between the two eye-movement conditions. A final experiment showed that perceived slant decreases when a fixed retinal shear is viewed with increasing pursuit speed, as predicted by the model. The implication of the results for recovering metric depth estimates from motion-based cues is discussed.

Perceived head-centric speed is affected by both extra-retinal and retinal errors.

When we make a smooth eye movement to track a moving object, the visual system must take the eye's movement into account in order to estimate the object's velocity relative to the head. This can be done by using extra-retinal signals to estimate eye velocity and then subtracting expected from observed retinal motion. Two familiar illusions of perceived velocity--the Filehne illusion and Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon--are thought to be the consequence of the extra-retinal signal underestimating eye velocity. These explanations assume that retinal motion is encoded accurately, which is questionable because perceived retinal speed is strongly affected by several stimulus properties. We develop and test a model of head-centric velocity perception that incorporates errors in estimating eye velocity and in retinal-motion sensing. The model predicts that the magnitude and direction of the Filehne illusion and Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon depend on spatial frequency and this prediction is confirmed experimentally.

An Acceleration Illusion Caused by Underestimation of Stimulus Velocity during Pursuit Eye Movements: Aubert–Fleischl Revisited

When the eyes pursue a fixation point that sweeps across a moving background pattern, and the fixation point is suddenly made to stop, the ongoing motion of the background pattern seems to accelerate to a higher velocity. Experiment I showed that this acceleration illusion is not caused by the sudden change in (i) the relative velocity between background and fixation point, (ii) the velocity of the retinal image of the background pattern, or (iii) the motion of the retinal image of the rims of the CRT screen on which the experiment was carried out. In experiment II the magnitude of the illusion was quantified. It is strongest when background and eyes move in the same direction. When they move in opposite directions it becomes less pronounced (and may disappear) with higher background velocities. The findings are explained in terms of a model proposed by the first author, in which the perception of object motion and velocity derives from the interaction between retinal slip velocity information and the brain's 'estimate' of eye velocity in space. They illustrate that the classic Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon (a stimulus seems to be moving slower when pursued with the eyes than when moving in front of stationary eyes) is a special case of a more general phenomenon: whenever we make a pursuit eye movement we underestimate the velocity of all stimuli in our visual field which happen to move in the same direction as our eyes, or which move slowly in the direction opposite to our eyes.

On the relativity of perceived motion

Perceived stability of the visual world during eye movements is traditionally explained as due to the presence of extraretinal signals, equal in magnitude to retinal signals. Motion is perceived when the two signals differ. An experiment is reported in which motion thresholds were measured during smooth pursuit eye movements. The results show that the traditional view is incomplete. Motion is only perceived when the two signals differ by at least a just noticeable difference (JND), the magnitude of which depends on ocular velocity and is independent of the direction of stimulus motion relative to the eyes. The data lead to the rejection of theories according to which ocular velocity is under-represented in extraretinal signals. In addition they show that retinal image motion carries no information about stimulus motion. Perceived motion, direction and velocity are relative concepts. They depend on the JND and therefore they are relative to extraretinal signals. This principle explains the Filehne illusion and even predicts the Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon. A similar analysis can be applied to understand vestibular effects on motion perception.