bioRxiv ScienceSearch

Biology subjects

Cooper, E.

Publications and source records attributed to Cooper, E..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Systematic misperceptions of 3D motion explained by Bayesian inference

People make surprising but reliable perceptual errors. Here, we provide a unified explanation for errors in the perception of three-dimensional (3D) motion. To do so, we characterized the retinal motion signals produced by objects moving with arbitrary trajectories through arbitrary locations in 3D. Next, we developed a Bayesian model, treating 3D motion perception as optimal inference given sensory noise and the geometry of 3D viewing. The model predicts a wide array of systematic perceptual errors, that depend on stimulus distance, contrast, and eccentricity. We then used a virtual reality (VR) headset as well as a standard 3D display to test these predictions in both traditional psychophysical and more naturalistic settings. We found evidence that people make many of the predicted errors, including a lateral bias in the perception of motion trajectories, a dependency of this bias on stimulus contrast, viewing distance, and eccentricity, and a surprising tendency to misreport approaching motion as receding and vice versa. In sum, we developed a quantitative model that provides a parsimonious account for a range of systematic misperceptions of motion in naturalistic environments.

neuroscience

No effect of hippocampal lesions on stimulus-response bindings

The hippocampus is believed to be important for rapid learning of arbitrary stimulus-response contingencies, or S-R bindings. In support of this, Schnyer et al., 2006 (Experiment 2) measured priming of reaction times (RTs) to categorise visual objects, and found that patients with medial temporal lobe damage, unlike healthy controls, failed to show evidence of reduced priming when response contingencies were reversed between initial and repeated categorisation of objects (a signature of S-R bindings). We ran a similar though extended object classification task on 6 patients who appear to have selective hippocampal lesions, together with 24 age-matched controls. Unlike Schnyer et al., 2006, we found that reversing response contingencies abolished priming in both controls and patients. Bayes Factors provided no reason to believe that response reversal had less effect on patients than controls. We therefore conclude that it is unlikely that the hippocampus is needed for S-R bindings.

neuroscience