Skip to main content

Part of the book series: IFMBE Proceedings ((IFMBE,volume 22))

  • 47 Accesses

Abstract

The capacity to identify and perceive biologically relevant actions is essential for survival and social skills. We hypothesized that the perception of biological motion could induce a different behavioral response compared with stimuli devoid of biological relevance. To check this hypothesis, we analyzed the eye movement response to a moving walker, or its scrambled version. Subjects were asked to pursue a point-light walker, created using Cutting’s algorithm, or its scrambled version. The walker consisted of 11 dots; a green fixation point on the hip dot and 10 red dots. The control stimulus - scrambled version- was obtained by shuffling the mean vertical position of the dots of the walker -except the hip dot- to disrupt the global form while keeping the same local motion. The point-light walker, or its scrambled version, then appeared and began to move in the randomized heading direction for 800ms before disappearing behind an invisible occluder. The stimulus reappeared 890ms later for 800ms. The type of stimulus -biological motion or scrambled version- its direction and its velocity were selected at random for each trial. We analyzed separately 4 different phases in the responses. In the first one -the reactive smooth pursuit-, we saw that the motor response was stronger with a biological stimulus. The smooth eye velocity was significantly greater for the walker 200ms after pursuit onset. We noticed no difference in eye movement velocity between both stimuli neither during the steady-state phase nor in the occlusion phase. But after reappearance of the stimulus, we saw a stronger smooth pursuit response for the biological motion. The mean acceleration of smooth pursuit eye movements for the first 150ms after stimulus reappearance was significantly higher for biological motion than for the control stimulus. These results show that the biological relevance of an action can influence the behavioral response to the visual stimulus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 429.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blake R, and Shiffrar M (2007) Perception of Human Motion. Annu Rev Psychol 58, 47–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Johansson G (1973) Visual Perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Percept Psychophys 14, 201–211.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cutting J E, Kozlowski L T (1977) Recognition of friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 9 353–356

    Google Scholar 

  4. Troje N F, Westhoff C, Lavrov M (2005) Person identification from biological motion: effects of structural and kinematic cues. Percept. Psychophys. 67:667–75

    Google Scholar 

  5. Decety J, Grezes J (1999) Neural mechanisms subserving the perception of human actions. Trends Cogn Sci 3, 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Thornton I M, Vuong Q C (2004) Incidental processing of biological motion. Curr Biol 14, 1084–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Grezes J, Fonlupt P, Bertenthal B, Delon-Martin C, Segebarth C, Decety J (2001) Does perception of biological motion rely on specific brain regions? Neuroimage, 13, 775–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Saygin A P, Wilson S M, Hagler D J Jr, Bates E, Sereno M I (2004) Point-light biological motion perception activates human premotor cortex. J Neurosci 24, 6181–6188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grossman E D, Battelli L, Pascual-Leone A (2005) Repetitive TMS over posterior STS disrupts perception of biological motion. Vision Res 45, 2847–2853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cutting J E (1978) A program to generate synthetic walkers as dynamic point-light displays. Behav. Res. Methods Instrument. 10, 91–94.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Becker W, Fuchs A F (1985) Prediction in the oculomotor system: smooth pursuit during transient disappearance of a visual target. Exp Brain Res 57: 562–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sébastien Coppe .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Coppe, S., Orban de Xivry, J.J., Missal, M., Lefevre, P. (2009). Biological motion input to the oculomotor system. In: Vander Sloten, J., Verdonck, P., Nyssen, M., Haueisen, J. (eds) 4th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering. IFMBE Proceedings, vol 22. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89208-3_511

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89208-3_511

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-89207-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-89208-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics