The spatial properties of opponent-motion normalization
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2026

Controlled Rotation of Human Observers in a Virtual Reality Environment
Published on: April 21, 2022
Stéphane J M Rainville1, Nicholas E Scott-Samuel, Walter L Makous
1Center for Visual Science, Meliora 274, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA. rainville@hpl.crestech.ca
Abstract:
The final stage of the Adelson-Bergen model [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 2 (1985) 284] computes net motion as the difference between directionally opposite energies E(L) and E(R). However, Georgeson and Scott-Samuel [Vis. Res. 39 (1999) 4393] found that human direction discrimination is better described by motion contrast (C(m))--a metric where opponent energy (E(L)-E(R)) is divided by flicker energy (E(L)+E(R)). In the present paper, we used a lateral masking paradigm to investigate the spatial properties of flicker energy involved in the normalization of opponent energy. Observers discriminated between left and right motion while viewing a checkerboard in which half of the checks contained a drifting sinusoid and the other half contained flicker (i.e. a counterphasing sinusoid). The relative luminance contrasts of flicker and motion checks determined the checkerboard's overall motion contrast C(m). We obtained selectivity functions for opponent-motion normalization by measuring C(m) thresholds whilst varying the orientation, spatial frequency, or size of flicker checks. In all conditions, performance (percent correct) decayed lawfully as we decreased motion contrast, validating the C(m) metric for our stimuli. Thresholds decreased with check size and also improved as we increased either the orientation or spatial-frequency difference between motion and flicker checks. Our data are inconsistent with Heeger-type normalization models [Vis. Neurosci. 9 (1992) 181] in which excitatory inputs are normalized by a non-selective pooling of inhibitory inputs, but data are consistent with the implicit assumption in Georgeson and Scott-Samuel's model that flicker normalization is localized in orientation, scale, and space. However, our lateral masking paradigm leaves open the possibility that the spatial properties of flicker normalization would be different if opponent and flicker energies spatially overlapped. Further characterization of motion contrast will require models of the spatial, temporal, and joint space-time properties of mechanisms mediating opponent-motion and flicker normalization.
Related Concept Videos
The Normal and Binormal Vectors
Curvilinear Motion: Normal and Tangential Components
The positive direction of the t-axis aligns with the increasing position of the car along the curved path, denoted by the unit vector ut. Simultaneously, the n-axis, perpendicular to the t-axis, dissects the curved path into differential arc segments, each forming the arc of a circle with a radius of...
Absolute Motion Analysis- General Plane Motion
As the drone's propellers rotate, an upward force is generated that counteracts the force of gravity, enabling the drone to lift off from the ground. This initial movement of the drone is along a straight path, representing a form of translational motion. In this phase, every point on the drone...
Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes
However, to express the relative position of point B relative to point A, an additional frame of reference, denoted as x'y', is necessary. This additional frame not only translates but also rotates relative to the fixed frame, making it instrumental in...
Relative Motion Analysis using Rotating Axes-Problem Solving
Here, in order to determine the magnitude of velocity and acceleration for point...
Planar Rigid-Body Motion
Planar motion is typically divided into three distinct categories. The first is rectilinear translation, demonstrated by a subway train that moves along...

