演題詳細
Poster
色度情報と輝度情報から成る視覚刺激の動きで起こる追従眼球運動
Ocular following responses of monkeys to competing motion of isoluminant color grating and luminance grating
- P1-163
- 松浦 清人 / Kiyoto Matsuura:1,2 三浦 健一郎 / Kenichiro Miura:1 河野 憲二 / Kenji Kawano:1
- 1:京都大院医認知行動脳科学 / Grad. Schl. Med., Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, Japan 2:京都伏見しみず病院 / Kyoto Fushimi Shimizu Hospital, Kyoto, Japan
Ocular following responses (OFRs) are elicited at ultra-short latencies (<60ms) by sudden motion of a visual scene in primates. In our previous study, we showed OFRs are elicited not only by motion of luminance sine wave gratings but also by motion of physiologically isoluminant color sine wave gratings. In this study, we examined OFRs to competing motion of color gratings and luminance gratings. The stimuli consisted of three sine wave gratings:
1) C+L stimulus: a sum of color sine wave and luminance sine wave
2) C stimulus: a color sine wave
3) L stimulus: a luminance sine wave
The spatiotemporal frequency of all stimuli was 0.58 cpd and 12.5 Hz. Color contrast of the C stimulus/component was 20%. Luminance contrast of the L stimulus/component was from 1 to 10%. The C stimulus/component moved forward in 1/8 wavelength steps and the L stimulus/component moved backward in 1/8 wavelength steps. We found that the responses to the C+L stimuli depended on the luminance contrast of the L component. When the luminance contrast of the L component was 1%, the response profile was almost identical to that obtained with the C stimulus. In other words, the C component almost dominated in the response to the C+L stimulus and the L component had little influence (winner-take-all). When the luminance contrast of the L component was 2%, the response was weaker than that obtained with the C stimulus, though the response was in the forward direction, indicating some influence by the L component. When the luminance contrast of the L component was 3%, the response changed to the backward direction, though weaker than that obtained with the L stimulus. This showed that the L component had stronger influence than the C component. When the luminance contrast of the L component was 7%, the response profile was almost identical to that obtained with the L stimulus. The L component almost dominated in the response to the C+L stimulus and the C component had little influence (winner-take-all). These results could be explained by the mutual inhibition between the color motion sensitive channel and the luminance motion sensitive channel.