Pursuit and perception both require accurate information about the motion of objects. Recovering the motion of objects by integrating the motion of their components is a difficult visual task. Successful integration produces coherent global object motion, while a failure to integrate leaves the incoherent local motions of the components unlinked. We compared the ability of perception and pursuit to perform motion integration by measuring direction judgments and the concomitant eye-movement responses to line-figure parallelograms moving behind stationary rectangular apertures. The apertures were constructed such that only the line segments corresponding to the parallelogram's sides were visible; thus, recovering global motion required the integration of the local segment motion. We investigated several potential motion-integration rules by using stimuli with different object, vector-average, and line-segment terminator-motion directions. We used an oculometric decision rule to directly compare direction discrimination for pursuit and perception. For visible apertures, the percept was a coherent object, and both the pursuit and perceptual performance were close to the object-motion prediction. For invisible apertures, the percept was incoherently moving segments, and both the pursuit and perceptual performance were close to the terminator-motion prediction. Furthermore, both psychometric and oculometric direction thresholds were much higher for invisible apertures than for visible apertures. We constructed a model in which both perception and pursuit are driven by a shared motion-processing stage, with perception having an additional input from an independent static-processing stage. Model simulations were consistent with our perceptual and oculomotor data. Based on these results, we propose the use of pursuit as an objective and continuous measure of perceptual coherence. Our results support the view that pursuit and perception share a common motion-integration stage, perhaps within areas MT or MST.

Extrastriate cortical area MT is thought to process behaviorally important visual motion signals. Psychophysical studies suggest that visual motion signals may be analyzed by multiple mechanisms, a “first-order” one based on luminance, and a “second-order” one based upon higher level cues (e.g. contrast, flicker). Second-order motion is visible to human observers, but should be invisible to first-order motion sensors. To learn if area MT is involved in the analysis of second-order motion, we measured responses to first- and second-order gratings of single neurons in area MT (and in one experiment, in area V1) in anesthetized, paralyzed macaque monkeys. For each neuron, we measured directional and spatio-temporal tuning with conventional first-order gratings and with second-order gratings created by spatial modulation of the flicker rate of a random texture. A minority of MT and V1 neurons exhibited significant selectivity for direction or orientation of second-order gratings. In nearly all cells, response to second-order motion was weaker than response to first-order motion. MT cells with significant selectivity for second-order motion tended to be more responsive and more sensitive to luminance contrast, but were in other respects similar to the remaining MT neurons; they did not appear to represent a distinct subpopulation. For those cells selective for second-order motion, we found a correlation between the preferred directions of first- and second-order motion, and weak correlations in preferred spatial frequency. These cells preferred lower temporal frequencies for second-order motion than for first-order motion. A small proportion of MT cells seemed to remain selective and responsive for second-order motion. None of our small sample of V1 cells did. Cells in this small population, but not others, may perform “form-cue invariant” motion processing (Albright, 1992).