Abstract

It was reported by Mullen and Boulton [ Vision Res. 32, 483 ( 1992)] that there is a lack of smooth-motion perception for chromatic stimuli, and we were interested in quantifying this observation to try to see how it relates to the underlying processing of moving chromatic stimuli. We suggest that, if a stimulus looks as though it is not moving smoothly, a greater degree of quantization will be necessary before observers are able to discriminate between fine and coarse temporal sampling of the moving pattern. We used a two-alternative forced-choice discrimination paradigm to measure observers’ ability to discriminate finely sampled (smooth) from coarsely sampled (jerky) motion in luminance (achromatic) and chromatic (red–green) gratings. Stimuli were presented for 0.5 s, moved at 2 or 4 Hz, and had a spatial frequency of 1, 5, or 10 cycles/deg. At low contrasts (0.5 log unit above detection threshold), sampled motion was more discriminable in luminance than in chromatic gratings. As contrast increased, performance improved in both chromatic and luminance gratings. As spatial frequency increased, performance improved for chromatic but fell for luminance gratings. Analysis of the data suggests that the ability to discriminate fine from coarsely sampled motion in both luminance and chromatic gratings can be predicted from the temporal Fourier spectra in terms of the “window of visibility” [ J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 3, 300 ( 1986)]. We conclude that the chromatic window of visibility is smaller than the luminance window at given spatial and temporal frequencies and gives a measure of the temporal resolution of the chromatic motion system. However, our results imply that the window of visibility cannot explain the percept of smooth motion. Under conditions in which there are no visible artifacts in the chromatic stimulus, observers seem still to perceive the motion as jerky, and we consider other possible explanations for this phenomenon.

© 1994 Optical Society of America

Detection and discrimination of moving stimuli: the effects of color, luminance, and eccentricity

Andrew B. Metha, Algis J. Vingrys, and David R. Badcock
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11(6) 1697-1709 (1994)

Detection and motion detection in chromatic and luminance beats

Simon J. Cropper and Andrew M. Derrington
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13(3) 401-407 (1996)

Orientation and spatial-frequency discrimination for luminance and chromatic gratings

Michael A. Webster, Karen K. De Valois, and Eugene Switkes
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7(6) 1034-1049 (1990)

Role of chromatic and luminance contrast in inferring structure from motion

Sophie M. Wuerger and Michael S. Landy
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 10(6) 1363-1372 (1993)

Motion at isoluminance: motion dead zones in three-dimensional color space

Davida Y. Teller and Delwin T. Lindsey
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 10(6) 1324-1331 (1993)