Wired for Motion
How is a motion-detecting neuron in the brain “wired up” to detect the direction of motion? Each such neuron or detector receives signals from its receptive field: a patch of retina (the light-sensing layer of tissue at the back of the eyes). When activated, a cluster of receptors in, say, the left side of the receptive field sends a signal to the motion detector, but the signal is too weak to activate the cell by itself. The adjacent cluster of retinal receptors on the right side of the receptive field also sends a signal to the same cell if stimulated—but, again, the signal is too weak on its own.

Now imagine that a “delay loop” is inserted between the first patch and the motion-detecting neuron but not between the second (right) patch and the same neuron. If the target moves rightward in the receptive field, the activity from the second patch of retina will arrive at the motion-detecting neuron at the same time as the delayed signal from the left patch. The two signals together will stimulate the neuron adequately for it to fire. Such an arrangement, akin to an AND gate, requires the circuit to include a delay loop and ensures direction as well as velocity specificity.

But this is only part of the story. In addition, we have to assume that for some reason we have yet to understand, stationary displays such as a and b produce differential activation within the motion receptive field, thereby resulting in spurious activation of motion neurons. The peculiar stepwise arrangement of edges—the variation in luminance and contrast—in each subregion of the image, combined with the fact that even when you fixate steadily your eyes are making ever so tiny movements, may be critical for artificially activating motion detectors. The net result is that your brain is fooled into seeing motion in a static display.

Enhancing Motion
Finally, it is also known that patterns with a certain amount of regularity and repetitiveness will excite a large number of motion detectors in parallel, very much enhancing your subjective impression of motion. A small section of a display such as c is insufficient to generate noticeable motion, although the massively parallel signals from the highly repetitive patterns together produce strong illusory motion. Readers may want to conduct a few casual experiments themselves: Is the illusion any stronger with two eyes than with one? How many almondlike shapes or snakes are necessary to see them moving?

The manner in which stationary pictures work their magic to create tantalizing impressions of motion is not fully understood. We do know, however, that these stationary displays activate motion detectors in the brain. This idea has also been tested physiologically, by recording from individual neurons in two areas of the monkey brain: the primary visual cortex (V1), which receives signals from the retina (after being relayed through the thalamus), and the middle temporal area (MT) on the side of the brain, which is specialized for seeing motion. (Damage to the MT causes motion blindness, in which moving objects look like a succession of static objects—as if lit by a strobe light.)

The question is, Would static images like the rotating snakes “fool” motion-detecting neurons? The initial answer seems to be yes, as has been shown in a series of physiological experiments published in 2005 by Bevil R. Conway of Harvard Medical School and his colleagues.

Thus, by monitoring the activity of motion-detecting neurons in animals and simultaneously exploring human motion perception using cunningly contrived displays such as a, b and c, scientists are starting to understand the mechanisms in your brain that are specialized for seeing motion. From an evolutionary standpoint, this capability has been a valuable survival asset as an early-warning system to attract your attention—whether to detect prey, predator or mate (all of which usually move, unlike stones and trees). Once again, illusion can be the path to understanding reality.

This article was originally published with the title A Moving Experience.

14 Comments

1. 1. mapper 11:09 AM 1/26/10

   You know - this article would have been so much better had the authors included images (or at a minumum - links to the images) they were discussing. Am I crazy, or is that a no-brainer?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. LB in reply to mapper 11:19 AM 1/26/10

   No, you aren't crazy. A picture is worth a thousand words...except in an article that is discussing optical illusions. Then, it's worth a lot more.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Quasimodo 11:22 AM 1/26/10

   No brainer. What is going on over there? Some of the infinite number of monkeys have left the building.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. heliumkidz 11:22 AM 1/26/10

   try this: http://www.itbhuglobal.org/chronicle/rotating-snakes.jpg

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. panamabob 11:24 AM 1/26/10

   Here's a link for a good demo.
   http://interactive.usc.edu/members/yuechuan/archives/optical-illusion-wheels-circles-rotating.png
   Bob
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. panamabob 11:29 AM 1/26/10

   Here's another:
   http://weblogs.cltv.com/entertainment/tv/metromix/optical-illusion.jpg

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. kieryn phipps 12:15 PM 1/26/10

   Actually the pictures are all there... we just can't see them because of a very clever optical illusion!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. mapper 02:11 PM 1/26/10

   I would like to thank heliumkidz and panamabob for doing the work of the SciAm writers. Maybe they will contact you the next time they dream up an article to write!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. dbtinc in reply to LB 02:29 PM 1/26/10

   my thoughts exactly - a picture is worth a thousand words. Author what weren't you thinking.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. panamabob in reply to mapper 05:10 PM 1/26/10

    Thanks for the thanks, my pleasure.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. rhodinsthinker 09:53 PM 1/26/10

    The pictures exist. The article posted on the Internet is a teaser. You have to buy the (digital) magazine to see the pictures.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. randy@wireonfire.net 04:59 PM 1/29/10

    Does anybody have a link to the two frame movie? Thanks for the links that weren't included. SA this article cries out "multimedia" I can hear it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

13. 13. hsabsolute 10:17 PM 1/30/10

    The reference in this article to (mechanically) detectable "neuronal activity" leaves a bit to be desired. Yes, the neurons are active during the process of sensing motion --just as the very credible observations indicate, however, simply being "active" may presume too much to be derived from the observation. In the next step, the possible malfunction accounting for the optical phenomena is noted.
    
    It seems that a preliminary step is missing in the account. This conclusion is suspiciously akin to reporting the occurrence of an earthquake, invasion or other event when it is observed as an increase in "phone calls" from the affected region.
    
    The question? What "message" (and, even more interesting, in what format?) is being sent? The neuron "signal" model will not account for sufficiently robust information flow to explain the reliability of visual sight with its incredibly diverse products.
    
    The next question: What exactly is the nature of what might be stored in memory which will ultimately provide a "match" to the visual data, rendering its identity to the conceptual mind?
    
    I'll try to pack off an interesting zip file to the authors.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

14. 14. Dom Amato 07:44 PM 2/13/10

    We would see the images if we bought the article.
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this