title: Optimal inference explains the perceptual coherence of visual motion stimuli.
abstract: The local spatiotemporal pattern of light on the retina is often consistent with a single translational velocity which may also be interpreted as a superposition of spatial patterns translating with different velocities. Human perception reflects such interpretations, as can be demonstrated using stimuli constructed from a superposition of two drifting gratings. Depending on a variety of parameters, these stimuli may be perceived as a coherently moving plaid pattern or as two transparent gratings moving in different directions. Here, we propose a quantitative model that explains how and why such interpretations are selected. An observer's percept corresponds to the most probable interpretation of noisy measurements of local image motion, based on separate prior beliefs about the speed and singularity of visual motion. This model accounts for human perceptual interpretations across a broad range of angles and speeds. With optimized parameters, its components are consistent with previous results in motion perception.
authors: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA. jhedges3@gmail.com
authors: James H
authors: JH
authors: Hedges
authors: Alan A
authors: AA
authors: Stocker
authors: Eero P
authors: EP
authors: Simoncelli
references: Vision Res. 1981;21(4):491-500
references: 7269327
references: Nature. 1990 Nov 22;348(6299):328-31
references: 2250703
references: PLoS One. 2007 Sep 26;2(9):e943
references: 17895984
references: Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1981 Mar 6;211(1183):151-80
references: 6111795
references: Vision Res. 1985;25(5):625-60
references: 3895725
references: Vision Res. 1992 Mar;32(3):465-75
references: 1604833
references: Vision Res. 1996 Aug;36(16):2475-88
references: 8917809
references: Vision Res. 1984;24(1):33-9
references: 6695505
references: Percept Psychophys. 1992 Oct;52(4):403-14
references: 1437473
references: Neural Comput. 2007 Dec;19(12):3335-55
references: 17970656
references: Nat Neurosci. 2006 May;9(5):690-6
references: 16617339
references: Neural Comput. 1998 Feb 15;10(2):403-30
references: 9472488
references: Vision Res. 2004 Mar;44(5):489-500
references: 14680775
references: Nature. 1990 Mar 8;344(6262):153-5
references: 2308632
references: Vision Res. 1992 Aug;32(8):1535-49
references: 1455726
references: J Neurophysiol. 1998 Feb;79(2):1017-44
references: 9463459
references: Nature. 1989 Feb 23;337(6209):734-6
references: 2918907
references: Vision Res. 2003 Mar;43(5):531-48
references: 12594999
references: Nat Neurosci. 1999 Aug;2(8):740-5
references: 10412064
references: Spat Vis. 1993;7(3):199-211
references: 8251434
references: Nat Neurosci. 2006 Apr;9(4):578-85
references: 16547513
references: J Neurophysiol. 2007 Sep;98(3):1125-39
references: 17615138
references: J Physiol Paris. 2007 Jan-May;101(1-3):64-77
references: 18036790
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 Mar;14(3):119-30
references: 20153683
references: Science. 2011 Jan 7;331(6013):83-7
references: 21212356
references: Vision Res. 2002 Sep;42(19):2253-7
references: 12220581
references: Nature. 1982 Dec 9;300(5892):523-5
references: 7144903
references: Vision Res. 1982;22(3):377-80
references: 7090191
references: Nature. 1988 May 5;333(6168):71-4
references: 3362210
references: Vision Res. 1996 May;36(9):1235-45
references: 8711903
references: Vision Res. 1993 Dec;33(17):2479-89
references: 8249328
references: Vision Res. 1992 Feb;32(2):393-7
references: 1574854
references: Nat Neurosci. 2006 Nov;9(11):1432-8
references: 17057707
references: Perception. 1990;19(4):425-35
references: 2096361
references: Vision Res. 1988;28(12):1323-35
references: 3256150
references: Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jun;5(6):598-604
references: 12021763
references: Vision Res. 1999 Jan;39(1):87-108
references: 10211398
references: Vision Res. 2006 Mar;46(6-7):782-6
references: 16171842
references: Perception. 1992;21(5):583-98
references: 1488262
references: J Neurosci. 1996 Feb 15;16(4):1486-510
references: 8778300