Biological motion perception is cue-invariant

Previous work investigating whether biological motion is supported by local second-order motion has been contradictory, with different groups finding either a difference or no difference in performance compared to that obtained with first-order stimuli. Here we show psychophysically, using randomize...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of vision (Charlottesville, Va.) Va.), 2008-06, Vol.8 (8), p.6.1-6
Main Authors: Aaen-Stockdale, Craig, Thompson, Benjamin, Hess, Robert F, Troje, Nikolaus F
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Cues
Differential Threshold
Discrimination (Psychology)
Female
Humans
Male
Motion Perception
Perceptual Masking
Photic Stimulation - methods
Psychophysics
Walking
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Previous work investigating whether biological motion is supported by local second-order motion has been contradictory, with different groups finding either a difference or no difference in performance compared to that obtained with first-order stimuli. Here we show psychophysically, using randomized-polarity and contrast-modulated stimuli, that detection of second-order biological motion walkers is worse for stimuli defined by second-order cues, but this difference is explained by a difference in visibility of the local motion in the stimuli. By mixing first-order and second-order dots within the same stimulus, we show that, when the two types of dot are equally visible, first-order noise dots can mask a second-order walker, and vice-versa. We also show that direction-discrimination of normal, inverted and scrambled walkers follow the same pattern for second-order as that obtained with first-order stimuli. These results are consistent with biological motion being processed by a mechanism that is cue-invariant.
ISSN:1534-7362
1534-7362
DOI:10.1167/8.8.6