Sensitivity to differential motion components, shearing and compressive (opposed) motion, was examined. The hypothesis that the visual system contains local mechanisms specifically sensitive to these types of motion was tested. Stimuli consisted of two moving sinusoidal gratings. Sensitivity to shear and compression was compared with sensitivity for linear motion. Lower thresholds of motion and contrast sensitivities were obtained. Subjects were more sensitive to opposed than to non-opposed motion for a range of grating orientations and different grating spatial frequencies. However sensitivity for opposed motion decreased in the presence of a second added linear motion. The hypothesis of local shear and compression mechanisms was rejected in favour of antagonistic (opponent) interactions between local motion mechanisms. Motion capture was examined. Stimuli were made up of a circular test grating surrounded by another grating. Subjects were required to judge the direction of motion of the test grating. Experiments examined the effects on motion capture of: centre grating size; orientation of surround; relative contrast of centre and surround; plaids in the surround. Conditions favouring motion capture were: with the smallest centre grating; with surround and centre orientations within thirty degrees; with surround had higher contrast than the centre; and only when a plaid surround contained a component of similar orientation as the centre. For conditions of motion capture relative to those of no-capture, increased velocity thresholds for judging the centre direction were found. This was associated with a shift in the bias point between opposed directions with no change in overall sensitivity to motion. It is suggested that a cooperative network of local motion mechanisms featuring centre-surround opponency can account for all the results of this study.

Yes / Purpose Flicker-defined form (FDF) stimuli have recently been adopted for visual field testing. A key difference between FDF and traditional perimetric stimuli is that the entire display background contains flickering dots. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the perception of FDF stimuli is influenced by lateral interactions involving regions beyond the stimulus border in young healthy observers. Methods Experiment 1 measured the effect of surround size and retinal eccentricity on the detection of the FDF contour. Psychometric functions were collected for surround diameters of 20°, 30° and 40°, and with stimuli centred at eccentricities of 0°, 10° and 20°. Experiment 2 measured the effect of target-surround temporal phase difference on apparent temporal contrast (flicker strength) of the target for both the FDF stimulus and a solid-field stimulus. Psychometric functions were collected for target-surround phase differences of 0°, 45°, 90°, 135° and 180°. Results Our results show a mild surround-suppression effect for FDF stimuli that is independent of surround size. Magnitudes of FDF surround suppression were consistent with the reduced temporal contrast energy of the stimulus compared to solid-field stimuli. Conclusion FDF stimuli necessarily have both flickering target and background. Our results suggest that visual field defects outside the target are unlikely to markedly influence the detection and perception of the FDF stimulus. Nevertheless, mild surround suppression of contrast arises for FDF stimuli, hence interactions between the background and the target area may influence FDF results in conditions that alter centre-surround perceptual effects.