Suppression and facilitation of motion perception in humans: a reply to Schallmo & Murray (2018)
Tzvetomir Tzvetanov

TL;DR
This paper defends previous computational and psychophysical analyses of motion perception experiments against critiques, emphasizing the role of divisive normalization over inhibition and clarifying data interpretation.
Contribution
It provides a detailed rebuttal to critiques, reaffirming the original analysis of motion perception mechanisms and emphasizing the importance of divisive normalization in explaining psychophysical results.
Findings
Divisive normalization explains motion perception effects.
Critiques do not invalidate original analysis.
Modeling applies broadly to similar experimental designs.
Abstract
In a recent publication (Tzvetanov (2018), bioRxiv 465807), I made an extensive analysis with computational modelling and psychophysics of the simple experimental design of Dr. D.Tadin (Tadin, Lappin, Gilroy and Blake (2003), Nature, 424:312-315) about motion perception changes in humans due to size and contrast of the stimulus. This publication sparked from strong claims made in Schallmo et al. (2018) (eLife, 7:e30334) about two important points: (1) "divisive normalization", not inhibitory and excitatory mechanisms, creates the observed psychophysical results and (2) drug-enhanced inhibition showed perceptual outcomes that hint to "weaker suppression" (i.e. inhibition) not stronger "suppression". Schallmo & Murray (2018, bioRxiv, 495291) presented concerns about my extensive publication, specifically about the parts where I directly analysed some of their methods, results and claims.…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsVisual perception and processing mechanisms
