Motion direction perception requires a much larger angular sweep than static localization

Evidence

The angular range covered by the noise sweeps in our experiments exerted the strongest effect on the owl’s sensitivity. To solve the task, the angular range had to be at least 24°. … Using a pupillary dilation response, Bala et al. ( 2007 ) measured a minimum audible angle of 3° in azimuth. … The small localization error in comparison to the minimum angular range needed for motion direction discrimination suggests that at least partially different neuronal circuits are involved in the location of stationary and of moving sound sources. … Thus, the barn owl brain uses separate but intermingled systems for representing auditory motion and spatial location. Furthermore, the large difference between the localization accuracy and the minimum angular range needed for motion direction discrimination renders it unlikely that the owls solve the motion direction discrimination task by a “snapshot” mechanism. The snapshot hypothesis suggests that the processing of motion simply relies on comparing starting and endpoint of the moving stimulus (e.g., Perrot and Marlborough 1989 ). The snapshot hypothesis was also dismissed in human psychophysical studies determining the minimum audible movement angle (reviewed by Middlebrooks and Green 1991 ). — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3216

Categorization

Category: Causal Relationships

• XREF: Spatial-plus-temporal integration for moving sounds — parallels the temporal integration window findings and connects to snapshot-vs-true-motion debates in human psychophysics (Middlebrooks and Green).
• SEED: An essay angle: why perceiving motion in any sensory system resists ‘snapshot’ comparison — the integration problem generalized across audition, vision, and touch.

Related

• Auditory motion direction detection requires much larger angular sweeps than static sound localization does. (similarity 0.93)
• Auditory motion perception is not computed from endpoint comparisons (similarity 0.91)
• Barn owls distinguish sound motion only across spans far exceeding their static localization acuity (similarity 0.91)
• Barn owls do not decode sound motion by comparing start and end points (similarity 0.88)
• Frontal space yields better auditory motion discrimination than lateral space (similarity 0.88)
• Owls require 24° of motion but only 3° for static localization (similarity 0.87)
• Motion perception improves with larger sweep angles more than with faster sweeps (similarity 0.87)
• Angular range dominates hearing-driven motion detection over speed and duration. (similarity 0.86)
• Inhibition and adaptation, not velocity matching, drive motion direction selectivity (similarity 0.86)
• Angular range, not velocity, dominates barn owl auditory motion discrimination sensitivity (similarity 0.85)
• Barn owls can be trained to report acoustic motion direction changes (similarity 0.84)
• Overlapping bilateral neural representation and confined receptive fields make frontal audio localization most accurate (similarity 0.83)
• Owls detect direction changes more readily in frontal than lateral space. (similarity 0.82)
• Neural adaptation shifts spatial receptive fields to encode auditory motion direction. (similarity 0.81)
• Synchronized visual motion captures perceived sound direction within 30 degrees (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Frontal space yields better auditory motion discrimination than lateral space #expands (0.88) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 3181