Minimization of Retinal Slip Cannot Explain Human Smooth-Pursuit Eye Movements
Existing models assume that pursuit attempts a direct minimization of retinal image motion or "slip" (e.g. Robinson et al., 1986; Krauzlis & Weisberger, 1989). Using occluded line-figure stimuli, we have previously shown that humans can accurately pursue stimuli for which perfect tracking does not zero retinal slip (Neurologic ARCO). These findings are inconsistent with the standard control strategy of matching eye motion to a target-motion signal reconstructed by adding retinal slip and eye motion, but consistent with a visual front-end which estimates target motion via a global spatio-temporal integration for pursuit and perception. Another possible explanation is that pursuit simply attempts to minimize slip perpendicular to the segments (and neglects parallel "sliding" motion). To resolve this, 4 observers (3 naive) were asked to pursue the center of 2 types of stimuli with identical velocity-space descriptions and matched motion energy. The line-figure "diamond" stimulus was viewed through 2 invisible 3 deg-wide vertical apertures (38 cd/m2 equal to background) such that only the sinusoidal motion of 4 oblique line segments (44 cd/m2 was visible. The "cross" was identical except that the segments exchanged positions. Two trajectories (8's and infinity's) with 4 possible initial directions were randomly interleaved (1.25 cycles, 2.5s period, Ax = Ay = 1.4 deg). In 91% of trials, the diamond appeared rigid. Correspondingly, pursuit was vigorous (mean Again: 0.74) with a V/H aspect ratio approx. 1 (mean: 0.9). Despite a valid rigid solution, the cross however appeared rigid in 8% of trials. Correspondingly, pursuit was weaker (mean Hgain: 0.38) with an incorrect aspect ratio (mean: 1.5). If pursuit were just minimizing perpendicular slip, performance would be the same in both conditions.