2 results
Are there separate ON and OFF channels in fly motion vision?
- Martin Egelhaaf, Alexander Borst
-
- Journal:
- Visual Neuroscience / Volume 8 / Issue 2 / February 1992
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 June 2009, pp. 151-164
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Visual information is processed in a series of subsequent steps. The performance of each of these steps depends not only on the computations it performs itself but also on the representation of the visual surround on which it operates. Here we investigate the consequences of signal preprocessing for the performance of the motion-detection system of the fly. In particular, we analyze whether the retinal input signals are rectified and segregate into separate ON and OFF channels, which then feed independent parallel motion-detection pathways. We recorded the activity of an identified directionally selective interneuron (HI-cell) in response to apparent motion stimuli, i.e. sequential brightness changes at two neighboring locations in the visual field, as well as to brightness changes at only a single location. For apparent motion stimuli, the motion-dependent response component was determined by subtracting from the overall response the responses to the individual stimulus components when presented alone. The following conclusions could be derived: (1) Apparent motion consisting of a sequence of increased or decreased brightness at two locations in the visual field have the same optimum interstimulus time interval (Fig. 3). (2) Sequences of brightness steps of like polarity (either increments or decrements) elicit positive and negative motion-dependent response components when mimicking motion in the cell's preferred and null direction, respectively. The motion-dependent response components are inverted in sign when the brightness steps of a stimulus sequence have a different polarity (Fig. 7). (3) The responses to the beginning and the end of a brightness pulse depend on the pulse duration. For pulse durations of less than 2 s, both events interact with each other (Fig. 9). All of these results do not provide any indication that the fly processes motion information in independent ON and OFF motion detectors. Brightness changes of both signs are rather represented at the input of the same movement detectors, and interactions between signals resulting from both brightness increments and decrements take their sign into account. This type of preprocessing of the retinal input is argued to render a motion-detection system particularly robust against noise.
Is vision continuous with cognition?: The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception
- Zenon Pylyshyn
-
- Journal:
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences / Volume 22 / Issue 3 / June 1999
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 June 1999, pp. 341-365
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Although the study of visual perception has made more progress in the past 40 years than any other area of cognitive science, there remain major disagreements as to how closely vision is tied to cognition. This target article sets out some of the arguments for both sides (arguments from computer vision, neuroscience, psychophysics, perceptual learning, and other areas of vision science) and defends the position that an important part of visual perception, corresponding to what some people have called early vision, is prohibited from accessing relevant expectations, knowledge, and utilities in determining the function it computes – in other words, it is cognitively impenetrable. That part of vision is complex and involves top-down interactions that are internal to the early vision system. Its function is to provide a structured representation of the 3-D surfaces of objects sufficient to serve as an index into memory, with somewhat different outputs being made available to other systems such as those dealing with motor control. The paper also addresses certain conceptual and methodological issues raised by this claim, such as whether signal detection theory and event-related potentials can be used to assess cognitive penetration of vision.
A distinction is made among several stages in visual processing, including, in addition to the inflexible early-vision stage, a pre-perceptual attention-allocation stage and a post-perceptual evaluation, selection, and inference stage, which accesses long-term memory. These two stages provide the primary ways in which cognition can affect the outcome of visual perception. The paper discusses arguments from computer vision and psychology showing that vision is “intelligent” and involves elements of “problem solving.” The cases of apparently intelligent interpretation sometimes cited in support of this claim do not show cognitive penetration; rather, they show that certain natural constraints on interpretation, concerned primarily with optical and geometrical properties of the world, have been compiled into the visual system. The paper also examines a number of examples where instructions and “hints” are alleged to affect what is seen. In each case it is concluded that the evidence is more readily assimilated to the view that when cognitive effects are found, they have a locus outside early vision, in such processes as the allocation of focal attention and the identification of the stimulus.