Disentangling visual and motor contributions to continuous psychophysics
- 1University of Southampton
Abstract
Continuous psychophysics measures visual function by asking observers to track a randomly moving target. Because continuous responses provide more information than traditional discrete judgements, a few minutes of tracking can estimate visual sensitivity, making the approach attractive for testing children and patients. Tracking performance is often summarized by cross-correlating the target and cursor velocities: the resulting cross-correlogram peak, lag and width index how strongly, quickly and sharply the observer responds to the target. Tracking, however, requires both seeing the target and moving the cursor towards it, so poor tracking may reflect impaired vision, impaired motor control, or both. Here, we test whether visual and motor contributions to tracking performance can be told apart. Participants tracked a target with a computer mouse while wearing glasses that simulate two levels of visual impairment, using either their dominant or their non-dominant hand. We find that both manipulations alter the cross-correlogram metrics, lowering the peak correlation and delaying and broadening the response, but in different proportions. Visual impairment mainly delays and broadens the response, and does so in proportion to each participant's loss of visual acuity. The non-dominant hand mainly lowers the peak correlation. Two signatures of motor control explain this difference: with the non-dominant hand, participants pause more often and for longer, and move more noisily between pauses, whereas visual impairment alters neither. Together, response lag, time paused and movement noise reveal whether a change in tracking is visual or motor in almost every participant. Our findings demonstrate that, given a baseline measurement, the same tracking data that measure vision can also reveal whether a change in performance reflects a change in what an individual sees or in how they move.
Related
- A Repulsive Bias in Perceived Heading Away from the Straight-Ahead as Determined by Continuous Psychophysics
- Dopamine modulation of motor and implicit learning contributions to auditory temporal attention
- Task-optimized neural networks reveal distinct contributions of specialized and broader visual learning to neural representations of face familiarity
- Simple, static, spiking nonlinearities can account for seemingly complex interactions between visual, motor and cognitive variables in the visual cortex.
- Visual-cortex-projecting neurons in mouse auditory cortex show distinct audiovisual responses independent of motor-related activity
BibTeX
@misc{pisu2026disentangling,
title = {{Disentangling visual and motor contributions to continuous psychophysics}},
author = {V. Pisu and A. Koselevs and C. Lam and P. Mamassian and D. Straub and C. A. Rothkopf and G. Maiello},
howpublished = {bioRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.64898/2026.11.03.763761},
url = {https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.11.03.763761v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Disentangling visual and motor contributions to continuous psychophysics
AU - V. Pisu
AU - A. Koselevs
AU - C. Lam
AU - P. Mamassian
AU - D. Straub
AU - C. A. Rothkopf
AU - G. Maiello
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
PB - bioRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.11.03.763761
UR - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.11.03.763761v1
AB - Continuous psychophysics measures visual function by asking observers to track a randomly moving target. Because continuous responses provide more information than traditional discrete judgements, a few minutes of tracking can estimate visual sensitivity, making the approach attractive for testing children and patients. Tracking performance is often summarized by cross-correlating the target and cursor velocities: the resulting cross-correlogram peak, lag and width index how strongly, quickly and sharply the observer responds to the target. Tracking, however, requires both seeing the target and moving the cursor towards it, so poor tracking may reflect impaired vision, impaired motor control, or both. Here, we test whether visual and motor contributions to tracking performance can be told apart. Participants tracked a target with a computer mouse while wearing glasses that simulate two levels of visual impairment, using either their dominant or their non-dominant hand. We find that both manipulations alter the cross-correlogram metrics, lowering the peak correlation and delaying and broadening the response, but in different proportions. Visual impairment mainly delays and broadens the response, and does so in proportion to each participant's loss of visual acuity. The non-dominant hand mainly lowers the peak correlation. Two signatures of motor control explain this difference: with the non-dominant hand, participants pause more often and for longer, and move more noisily between pauses, whereas visual impairment alters neither. Together, response lag, time paused and movement noise reveal whether a change in tracking is visual or motor in almost every participant. Our findings demonstrate that, given a baseline measurement, the same tracking data that measure vision can also reveal whether a change in performance reflects a change in what an individual sees or in how they move.
ER -