Biology subjects

Murdison, T. S.

Publications and source records attributed to Murdison, T. S..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2023

Motor "laziness" constrains fixation selection in real-world tasks

AO_SCPLOWBSTRACTC_SCPLOWPeople coordinate their eye, head, and body movements to gather information from a dynamic environment while maximizing reward and minimizing biomechanical and energetic costs. Such natural behavior is not possible in a laboratory setting where the head and body are usually restrained and the tasks and stimuli used often lack ecological validity. Therefore, its unclear to what extent principles of fixation selection derived from lab studies, such as inhibition-of-return (IOR), apply in a real-world setting. To address this gap, participants performed nine real-world tasks, including driving, grocery shopping, and building a lego set, while wearing a mobile eye tracker (169 recordings; 26.6 hours). Surprisingly, spatial and temporal IOR were absent in all tasks. Instead, participants most often returned to what they just viewed, and saccade latencies were shorter preceding return than forward saccades. We hypothesized that participants minimize the time their eyes spend in an eccentric position to conserve eye and head motor effort. Correspondingly, we observed center biases in the distributions of fixation location and duration, relative to the heads orientation. A model that generates scanpaths by randomly sampling these distributions reproduced the spatial and temporal return phenomena seen in the data, including distinct 3-fixation sequences for forward versus return saccades. The amount of the orbit used in each task traded off with fixation duration, as if both incur costs in the same space. Conservation of effort ("laziness") explains all these behaviors, demonstrating that motor costs shape how people extract and act on relevant visual information from the environment. Significance StatementHumans display remarkably precise yet flexible control of eye and body movements, allowing for a wide range of activities. However, most studies of gaze behavior use the same setup: a head-restrained participant views small images on a computer. Such lab studies find that people avoid looking at the same thing twice, and hesitate in cases when they do. We had people perform nine everyday activities while wearing glasses with embedded eye tracking, and surprisingly found that they did the opposite, often returning to what they just viewed and expediting these "return" eye movements over others. A tendency to keep the eyes centered in the head, which we speculate helps to conserve motor effort, explained these behaviors for all tasks.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2018

Mis-perception of motion in depth originates from an incomplete transformation of retinal signals

Depth perception requires the use of an internal model of the eye-head geometry to infer distance from binocular retinal images and extraretinal 3D eye-head information, particularly ocular vergence. Similarly for motion in depth perception, gaze angle is required to correctly interpret the spatial direction of motion from retinal images; however, it is unknown whether the brain can make adequate use of extraretinal version and vergence information to correctly interpret binocular retinal motion for spatial motion in depth perception. Here, we tested this by asking participants to reproduce the perceived spatial trajectory of an isolated point stimulus moving on different horizontal-depth paths either peri-foveally or peripherally while participants gaze was oriented at different vergence and version angles. We found large systematic errors in the perceived motion trajectory that reflected an intermediate reference frame between a purely retinal interpretation of binocular retinal motion (ignoring vergence and version) and the spatially correct motion. A simple geometric model could capture the behavior well, revealing that participants tended to underestimate their version by as much as 17%, overestimate their vergence by as much as 22%, and underestimate the overall change in retinal disparity by as much as 64%. Since such large perceptual errors are not observed in everyday viewing, we suggest that other monocular and/or contextual cues are required for accurate real-world motion in depth perception.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2017

Effector-dependent response deterioration by stochastic transformations reveals mixed reference frames for decisions

Recent psychophysical and modeling studies have revealed that sensorimotor reference frame transformations (RFTs) add variability to motor output by decreasing the fidelity of sensory signals. How RFT stochasticity affects the sensory input underlying perceptual decisions, if at all, is unknown. To investigate this, we asked participants to perform a simple two-alternative motion direction discrimination task under varying conditions of head roll and/or stimulus rotation while responding either with a saccade or button press, allowing us to attribute behavioral effects to eye-, head- and shoulder-centered reference frames. We observed a rotation-induced, increase in reaction time and decrease in accuracy, indicating a degradation of motion evidence commensurate with a decrease in motion strength. Inter-participant differences in performance were best explained by a continuum of eye-head-shoulder representations of accumulated decision evidence, with eye- and shoulder-centered preferences during saccades and button presses, respectively. We argue that perceptual decision making and stochastic RFTs are inseparable, consistent with electrophysiological recordings in neural areas thought to be encoding sensorimotor signals for perceptual decisions. Furthermore, transformational stochasticity appears to be a generalized phenomenon, applicable throughout the perceptual and motor systems. We show for the first time that, by simply rolling ones head, perceptual decision making is impaired in a way that is captured by stochastic RFTs.\n\nSignificance statementWhen exploring our environment, we typically maintain upright head orientations, often even despite increased energy expenditure. One possible explanation for this apparently suboptimal behavior might come from the finding that sensorimotor transformations, required for generating geometrically-correct behavior, add signal- dependent variability (stochasticity) to perception and action. Here, we explore the functional interaction of stochastic transformations and perceptual decisions by rolling the head and/or stimulus during a motion direction discrimination task. We find that, during visuomotor rotations, perceptual decisions are significantly impaired in both speed and accuracy in a way that is captured by stochastic transformations. Thus, our findings suggest that keeping ones head aligned with gravity is in fact ideal for making perceptual judgments about our environment.

neuroscience↗

bioRxiv2017

Predictive orientation remapping maintains a stable retinal percept

Despite motion on the retina with every saccade, we perceive the world as stable. But whether this stability is a result of neurons constructing a spatial map or continually remapping a retinal representation is unclear. Previous work has focused on the perceptual consequences of shifts in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but torsion is another key component in ocular orienting that - unlike horizontal and vertical movements - produces a natural misalignment between spatial and retinal coordinates. Here we took advantage of oblique eye orientation-induced retinal torsion to examine perisaccadic orientation perception. We found that orientation perception was largely predicted by the retinal image throughout each trial. Surprisingly however, we observed a significant presaccadic remapping of the percept consistent with maintaining a stable (but spatially inaccurate) retinotopic perception throughout the saccade. These findings strongly suggest that our seamless perceptual stability relies on retinotopic signals that are remapped with each saccade.

neuroscience↗