2016-10-28 13:59:35

Go with the flow: The development of behavioral sensitivity and brain responses to optic flow

Rick O. Gilmore

Support: NSF BCS-1147440, NSF BCS-1238599, NICHD U01-HD-076595

Questions

  • What is optic flow?
  • Why is optic flow important?
  • How does optic flow sensitivity develop?
  • How do brain systems for processing optic flow develop?
  • What shapes these patterns of development?

Approach

  • EEG measures of brain responses to optic flow
  • Psychophysical measures of optic flow perception
  • Computational simulations of optic flow experiences across developmental milestones
  • Empirical measures of experienced optic flow across development from head-mounted video cameras

Claims

  • Brain and behavioral responses to optic flow develop throughout childhood
    • Still immature in 5-8 year-olds
  • Changes in the statistics of experienced optic flow shape development in infancy, and likely beyond

A pitch and a prediction

  • Open, transparent, and reproducible research practices – including open data sharing – have changed my work
  • Within 10 years (maybe 5) it will be impossible to get funded or published if you have not adopted them
  • It will be good for us and for science

What is Optic Flow?

  • Structured pattern of visual motion generated by observer movement

Types of Optic Flow

Why is optic flow important?

  • Geometry of environment
    • Surface layout, orientation
    • Object motion
  • Direction, speed of self-motion
    • Rotation, translation
    • Visual proprioception (eye vs. head vs. body)

Flow Type Movement Type
Expansion/Contraction Forward/backward head/body
Rotation Rotation of head/body
Up/down/left/right Translation of eyes/head/body

How Does Optic Flow Sensitivity Develop?

  • Sensitivity at birth, (Jouen et al. 2000)
  • Infants
    • Brain responses stronger to fast, translational flow, (Hou et al. 2009; Rick O. Gilmore et al. 2007)
    • Behavioral responses stronger to fast translational flow, (Kiorpes and Movshon 2004)
    • Primate universal pattern? Not adult-like until late adolescence?

How Does Optic Flow Sensitivity Develop?

  • Adults
    • Brain responses stronger to radial flow, (Rick O. Gilmore et al. 2007; Fesi, Thomas, and Gilmore 2014).

Gaps

  • Brain and behavioral responses in childhood
  • Linking brain and behavioral responses
  • What influences developmental shifts?
    • Why fast speeds and linear flows?

How Do Children's Brains Respond to Flow?

  • If infant-like: stronger responses to fast, linear flows
  • If adult-like: stronger responses to slow, radial flows
  • If in-between:
    • fast + radial OR
    • slow + linear

Brain Responses to Flow

Gilmore, R.O., Thomas, A.L., & Fesi, J.D (2016). Children's brain responses to optic flow vary by pattern type and motion speed. PLoS ONE. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157911. Materials on Databrary at http://doi.org/10.17910/B7QG6W

Fesi, J.F., Thomas, A.L., & Gilmore, R.O. (2014). Cortical responses to optic flow and motion contrast across patterns and speeds. Vision Research, 100, 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2014.04.004. Materials on Databrary at http://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.17910/B7101Z.

Methods

  • Time-varying optic flow patterns
  • Steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs)
    • Event-related EEG technique
    • Focus on phase-locked, low-order harmonics
  • n=29 4-8 year-olds

2 deg/s translation

4 deg/s rotation

8 deg/s radial

Displays

  • Modulate coherence/signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), 100%/0%
  • Modulation frequency 1.2 Hz (1F1), dot update rate 24 Hz (1F2)
  • Cross pattern and speed

Data analysis

  • Fourier analysis (frequency domain)
    • generates complex domain (real, imaginary) components
    • time-varying signals have amplitude, phase
  • Codepen Demo

Data analysis

  • Mixed effects MANOVA to capture phase, amplitude
    • Pattern (radial, rotation, linear) and Speed (2, 4, 8 deg/s) as fixed effects
    • Individual means as random factors
  • Analyze channels independently with conservative \(\alpha\) (.0005)

1F1 Channel-Wise Results

1F1 Channels p < .0005

Complex Domain Plot of 1F1 Channels

1F1 Results Summary

  • Highly responsive channels over right lateral cortex
  • Radial & rotation >> translation
  • Amplitude and phase differences

2F1 Channel-Wise Results

3F1 Channel-Wise Results

3F1 Channels p < .0005

Complex Domain Plot of 3F1 Channels

3F1 Results Summary

  • Highly responsive channels over medial cortex
  • Speed, but not pattern tuned, 2 < 4 = 8 deg/s
  • Amplitude and phase differences

1F2 Channel-Wise Results

1F2 Channels p < .0005

Results Summary

  • Anatomical separation of responses
    • speed (medial)
    • vs. pattern (lateral)
  • Radial & rotation != translation, phase & amplitude
  • Speed tuning (local and global)

Children vs. Adults

Children's 1F1

Adults' 1F1

Children's 3F1

Adults' 3F1

Children's 1F2

Adults' 1F2

Developmental Effects

  • Children adult-like in many respects
    • Lateral "pattern" responses @ 1F1
    • Medial "speed" responses @ 3F1 and 1F2
  • Activate smaller # of channels, more focal

Behavioral Responses

Adamiak, W., Thomas, A.L., Patel, S.M., & Gilmore. R.O. (2015, May). Adult observers’ sensitivity to optic flow varies by pattern and speed. Poster presented at the Vision Sciences Society meeting, St. Pete's Beach, FL. Databrary, F1000 Research. GitHub.

Gilmore, R.O., Seisler, A.R., Shade, M.A., & O'Neill, M.J. (in prep). School-age children perceive fast radial optic flow in noise more accurately than slow linear flow. Databrary. GitHub.

Methods

  • Time-varying optic flow
    • Radial, linear
    • 2, 8 deg/s
    • 5, 10, 15, 20% coherence (adults)
    • 15, 30, 45, 60% and 20, 40, 60, 80% (children)

Methods

  • Side by side displays
    • Signal/noise
    • Choose side with signal
    • 2AFC, 10 s response period

Methods

  • Generalized linear mixed effects modeling (lmer in R)
    • Random intercepts by participant
    • Coherence, Pattern, Speed as fixed effects
  • Probit link function (2AFC)

Children's responses p(correct)

Adults' responses p(correct)

Statistical modeling

Speed effects in children

Speed effects in adults

Pattern effects in children

Pattern effects in adults

Children's RT

Adults' RT

Interim Summary

  • Children faster and more accurate to detect fast, radial flow
  • Adults faster, more accurate to detect radial flow, small advantage for slow speeds
  • Children's evoked brain responses to fast, radial flow higher amplitude
  • Adults' EEG responses to speed vary by scalp location, radial patterns higher

Children's 3F1

Children's 1F1

What influences developmental shifts?

  • Predictions
    • Fast, linear flows common in natural experiences of infants
    • Eye/head movements, head instability
    • Infants' motion "prior" is not slow (Florian Raudies and Gilmore 2014; F. Raudies et al. 2012)

What influences developmental shifts?

Summary of simulation & head camera analyses

  • Infants commonly experience fast, laminar flows.
    • Head, eye movements >> forward-facing locomotion
  • Transition from infancy to adulthood shaped by changing statistics of visual input
    • Body dimensions, posture, locomotor speed

Summing up

  • Brain and behavioral responses to optic flow develop throughout childhood
    • Still immature in 5-8 year-olds
  • Changes in the statistics of experienced optic flow shape development in infancy, and likely beyond

A Pitch

  • Open, transparent, and reproducible research practices – including open data sharing – have changed my work
    • Video data sharing
    • Computer vision analyses of video

And a prediction

  • Within 10 years (maybe 5) it will be impossible to get funded or published if you have not adopted them
  • It will be good for us and for science

(Szucs and Ioannidis 2016)

"We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by extracting more than 100,000 statistical records from about 10,000 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published during the past 5 years…False report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience."

The way forward

The way forward

Keep in touch

References

Fesi, Jeremy D., Amanda L. Thomas, and Rick O. Gilmore. 2014. “Cortical Responses to Optic Flow and Motion Contrast Across Patterns and Speeds.” Vision Research 100 (July): 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2014.04.004.

Gilmore, R. O., F. Raudies, and S. Jayaraman. 2015. “What Accounts for Developmental Shifts in Optic Flow Sensitivity?” In 2015 Joint IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-EpiRob), 19–25. doi:10.1109/DEVLRN.2015.7345450.

Gilmore, Rick O., C. Hou, M.W. Pettet, and A.M. Norcia. 2007. “Development of Cortical Responses to Optic Flow.” Visual Neuroscience 24 (06): 845–56. doi:10.1017/S0952523807070769.

Goodman, Steven N., Daniele Fanelli, and John P. A. Ioannidis. 2016. “What Does Research Reproducibility Mean?” Science Translational Medicine 8 (341): 341ps12–341ps12. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027.

Hou, C., R.O. Gilmore, M.W. Pettet, and A.M. Norcia. 2009. “Spatio-Temporal Tuning of Coherent Motion Evoked Responses in 4–6 Month Old Infants and Adults.” Vision Research 49 (20): 2509–17. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.007.

Jouen, François, Jean-Claude Lepecq, Olivier Gapenne, and Bennett I Bertenthal. 2000. “Optic Flow Sensitivity in Neonates.” Infant Behavior and Development 23 (3–4): 271–84. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00044-3.

Kiorpes, Lynne, and J. Anthony Movshon. 2004. “Development of Sensitivity to Visual Motion in Macaque Monkeys.” Visual Neuroscience 21 (6): 851–59. doi:10.1017/S0952523804216054.

Raudies, F., R.O. Gilmore, K.S. Kretch, J.M. Franchak, and K.E. Adolph. 2012. “Understanding the Development of Motion Processing by Characterizing Optic Flow Experienced by Infants and Their Mothers.” In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL), 1–6. doi:10.1109/DevLrn.2012.6400584.

Raudies, Florian, and Rick O. Gilmore. 2014. “Visual Motion Priors Differ for Infants and Mothers.” Neural Computation 26 (11): 2652–68. doi:10.1162/NECO_a_00645.

Szucs, Denes, and John PA Ioannidis. 2016. “Empirical Assessment of Published Effect Sizes and Power in the Recent Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology Literature.” BioRxiv, August, 071530. doi:10.1101/071530.