Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34468705›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2021

Spatiotemporal integration of isolated binocular three-dimensional motion cues.

Jake A Whritner, Thaddeus B Czuba, Lawrence K Cormack, Alexander C Huk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Walking humans and running mice: perception and neural encoding of optic flow during self-motion.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jake A WhritnerCenter for Perceptual Systems, Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Thaddeus B CzubaCenter for Perceptual Systems, Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Lawrence K CormackCenter for Perceptual Systems, Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Alexander C HukCenter for Perceptual Systems, Departments of Neuroscience & Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.

Funding

Motion processing with two eyes in three dimensionsR01EY020592 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI CORMACK, LAWRENCE KEVIN, HUK, ALEXANDER C · 2011 to 2021
$3.4M
CPS Training ProgramT32EY021462 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI Mary M Hayhoe, Alexander C Huk · 2012 to 2026
$2.5M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY020592NEI NIH HHS T32 EY021462
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two primary binocular cues-based on velocities seen by the two eyes or on temporal changes in binocular disparity-support the perception of three-dimensional (3D) motion. Although these cues support 3D motion perception in different perceptual tasks or regimes, stimulus cross-cue contamination and/or substantial differences in spatiotemporal structure have complicated interpretations. We introduce novel psychophysical stimuli which cleanly isolate the cues, based on a design introduced in oculomotor work (Sheliga, Quaia, FitzGibbon, & Cumming, 2016). We then use these stimuli to characterize and compare the temporal and spatial integration properties of velocity- and disparity-based mechanisms. On average, temporal integration of velocity-based cues progressed more than twice as quickly as disparity-based cues; performance in each pure-cue condition saturated at approximately 200 ms and approximately 500 ms, respectively. This temporal distinction suggests that disparity-based 3D direction judgments may include a post-sensory stage involving additional integration time in some observers, whereas velocity-based judgments are rapid and seem to be more purely sensory in nature. Thus, these two binocular mechanisms appear to support 3D motion perception with distinct temporal properties, reflecting differential mixtures of sensory and decision contributions. Spatial integration profiles for the two mechanisms were similar, and on the scale of receptive fields in area MT. Consistent with prior work, there were substantial individual differences, which we interpret as both sensory and cognitive variations across subjects, further clarifying the case for distinct sets of both cue-specific sensory and cognitive mechanisms. The pure-cue stimuli presented here lay the groundwork for further investigations of velocity- and disparity-based contributions to 3D motion perception.

Indexed as

CuesMotion PerceptionDepth PerceptionHumansMotionVision, BinocularVision Disparity

Identifiers

PMID34468705
PMCPMC8419873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.