A Bayesian model of perceived head-centered velocity during smooth pursuit eye movement.
During 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.
Freeman
Tom C A
TC
School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK. freemant@cardiff.ac.uk
Champion
Rebecca A
RA
Warren
Paul A
PA
D001499:Bayes Theorem; D006257:Head; D006801:Humans; D007088:Illusions; D008954:Models, Biological; D009039:Motion Perception / Q000502:physiology; D009068:Movement / Q000502:physiology*; D011698:Pursuit, Smooth / Q000502:physiology*
Vision Res. 2005 Nov;45(24):3027-49
16171844
J Comput Neurosci. 2006 Feb;20(1):61-76
16511654
J Vis. 2008 Dec 18;8(14):24.1-14
19146325
Vision Res. 2009 Mar;49(5):514-23
19126411
Vision Res. 2009 Mar;49(7):782-9
19264090
Vision Res. 2001 Aug;41(18):2375-91
11459594
Percept Psychophys. 2000 Jul;62(5):900-9
10997037
Vis Neurosci. 1993 Nov-Dec;10(6):1157-69
8257671
Exp Brain Res. 2010 Mar;201(2):271-82
19841914
Vision Res. 2001 Sep;41(21):2741-55
11587724
Vision Res. 2006 Nov;46(25):4294-303
16225900
Perception. 1992;21(5):563-8
1488260
Vision Res. 2003 Jul;43(16):1709-18
12818340
Nature. 1997 Oct 23;389(6653):849-52
9349816
Perception. 1995;24(4):363-72
7675617
J Vis. 2008 Apr 23;8(4):20.1-19
18484859
J Vis. 2009 Jan 23;9(1):33.1-11
19271903
Neuron. 2001 Nov 8;32(3):527-35
11709162
Exp Brain Res. 2007 May;179(2):263-90
17136526
Vision Res. 2007 Feb;47(4):564-8
17011014
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Apr;9(4):578-85
16547513
J Neurosci. 2005 Oct 26;25(43):10049-60
16251454
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 19;105(33):12087-92
18697948
Neuron. 2004 Jul 8;43(1):145-51
15233924
J Vis. 2008 Oct 23;8(14):10.1-14
19146311
Vision Res. 1982;22(7):851-6
7123871
Vision Res. 2002 Sep;42(19):2253-7
12220581
Vision Res. 2001 Feb;41(3):385-95
11164453
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):162-9
15050512
Vision Res. 2000;40(24):3427-34
11058739
Vision Res. 1999 Aug;39(16):2659-67
10492828
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Nov;9(11):1432-8
17057707
Vision Res. 2002 Jun;42(14):1771-84
12127109
Curr Biol. 2009 Sep 29;19(18):1555-60
19699091
Vision Res. 1988;28(12):1323-35
3256150
Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):598-604
12021763
Vision Res. 2006 Mar;46(6-7):782-6
16171842