Differential activation solution to the motion correspondence problem.

The correspondence problem arises in motion perception when more than one motion path is possible for discontinuously presented visual elements. Ullman's (1979) "minimal mapping" solution to the correspondence problem, for which costs are assigned to competing motion paths on the basis of element affinities (e.g., greater affinity for elements that are closer together), is distinguished from a solution based on the differential activation of directionally selective motion detectors. The differential activation account was supported by evidence that path length affects detector activation in a paradignm for which motion correspondence is not a factor. Effects on detector activation in this paradigm also were the basis for the successful prediction of path luminance effects on solutions to the motion correspondence problem. Finally, the differential activation account was distinguished from minimal mapping theory by an experiment showing that the perception of an element moving simultaneously in two directions does not depend on whether the two motions are matched in path-length determined affinity; it is sufficient that the activation of detectors responding to each of the two motion directions is above the threshold level required for the motions to be perceived. Implications of the differential activation solution are discussed for the stability of perceived motions once they are established, and the adaptation of perceived and unperceived motions.

Dichoptic plaids may rival, but their motions can integrate.

When the eyes view incompatible images, binocular rivalry usually results: image constituents in corresponding parts of the monocular visual fields are not perceived simultaneously. We asked naive undergraduates to view dichoptic, dioptic, and monoptic plaids. The dichoptic images evoked strong binocular rivalry when contrast was high, especially if the component gratings were set in motion. Nevertheless, the subjects' visual systems integrated the motion information across the two eyes, producing a unitary motion percept that did not reflect the image in either eye alone. By manipulating the relative spatial scale of the gratings, we affected how well the motion cohered: the results were remarkably similar between dichoptic and traditional dioptic plaids. By manipulating the relative speed of the gratings, we systematically affected the perceived direction of motion of the plaids; these results were also remarkably similar for dichoptic and dioptic plaids. Thus, the motion analysis of dichoptic and dioptic plaids is proceeding according to very similar rules, even though the dichoptic images are incompatible and evoke binocular rivalry.