We developed a model of complex motion processing to simulate the effects of increased internal noise or reduced sampling efficiency
(Fig. 4) . The movie sequence (eight sequential movies frames, each with 256 × 256 pixels, single frames from which are shown in
Fig. 1C ) was convolved with a set of eight direction-selective motion energy filters,
78 defined as
\[F_{{\theta}}{=}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2{\pi}}{\sigma}_{x}{\sigma}_{y}{\sigma}_{t}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{-}\frac{x^{2}}{2{\sigma}_{x}^{2}}\ {-}\frac{y^{2}}{2{\sigma}_{y}^{2}}\ {-}\frac{t^{2}}{2{\sigma}_{t}^{2}}\ {+}i({\omega}_{s}s_{{\theta}}{+}{\omega}_{t}t)\right],\]
where spatial frequency (ω
s) was 16 pixels (equivalent to 2 cyc/deg under our experimental conditions),
s θ=
xcosθ +
ysinθ and the standard deviations of the spatiotemporal Gaussian envelope were σ
x = σ
y = 8 pixels and σ
t = 2 frames. Single frames of the motion detectors are shown in
Figure 4A , with arrows to indicate direction of motion. The response magnitudes for each direction filter were summed across all frames and were used to compute the interpolated direction at each point in the movie:
\[{\hat{{\theta}}}{=}a\mathrm{tan}\ 2({{\sum}}r_{{\theta}}(\mathrm{sin}{\theta}),{{\sum}}r_{{\theta}}(\mathrm{cos}{\theta})),\]
where θ̂ is the interpolated direction and,
r θ is the response of each filter with peak direction sensitivity at θ.
Figure 4Cshows a colored direction map (according to the key shown in 4B) for a typical movie sequence. A binary decision (forward or backward) was based on the greater cross correlation between an expanding
(Fig. 4B)or a contracting complex direction template. This binary decision was used for the model to generate contrast direction thresholds in noise, as in the main experiment. Circles and the green curve in
Figure 4Fshow the model behavior as external noise increased. The solid and dashed green curves show the responses of motion filters with a peak spatial frequency of 2 or 4 cyc/deg respectively, which produced almost identical behavior. Noisy RGCs were simulated by adding response noise to the inputs to each motion detector, which produced noisy local direction estimates, as illustrated in
Figure 4D . This degraded the model’s global motion performance, principally at low noise levels (triangles and red curve in
Fig. 4F ) and produced higher estimates of internal noise according to EN analysis. RGC loss was simulated by randomly deleting inputs to each motion detector
(Fig. 4E) . Such lesions degraded model performance principally at high noise levels (squares and blue curve in
Figure 4F ) and produced lower estimates of sampling efficiency according to EN analysis. This latter pattern of results is similar to that observed in patients with POAG.