Motion Detection in the Far Peripheral Visual Field 

by William A. Monaco, Joel T. Kalb, and Chris A. Johnson 

ARL-MR-0684 December 2007 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof. 

DESTRUCTION NOTICE⎯Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to 

the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

ARL-MR-0684 December 2007 

Motion Detection in the Far Peripheral Visual Field 

William A. Monaco and Joel T. Kalb 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ARL 

Chris A. Johnson 

Discoveries in Sight, Devers Eye Institute 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

 December 2007 

2. REPORT TYPE 

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

 Motion Detection in the Far Peripheral Visual Field 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

 62716AH70 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

 William A. Monaco and Joel T. Kalb (both of ARL); Chris A. Johnson (DEI) 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-MR-0684

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

Our objectives were to apply Bayesian threshold estimation procedures and new technology to the determination of motion 

detection (angular velocity) and to determine whether threshold measures, combined with large screen technology and 

specialized software, could be used to evaluate human motion sensitivity in the far peripheral visual field beyond 50 degrees’ 

radius. With the use of the Parameter Estimation by Sequential Testing threshold estimation procedure, black dot targets 

were presented at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees’ eccentricity in the temporal visual field of two subjects who had normal visual 

function. Motion detection thresholds demonstrated a systematic increase with increasing visual field eccentricity and could 

be obtained within 10 stimulus trials. The average angular velocity motion thresholds were approximately 0.5 degree per 

second for the 54.3-degree eccentricity, 1.2 to 1.5 degrees per second for the 72.6-degree eccentricity, and 2.1 degrees per 

second for the 90-degree eccentricity. Our findings indicate that it is possible to obtain motion detection (displacement) 

thresholds in the far peripheral visual field using Bayesian threshold estimation procedures. In view of the importance of 

motion detection in the periphery for stimulus localization, attentional demands, orientation and mobility tasks, this 

procedure may have significant applications for many military visual tasks. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 extreme retinal periphery; motion detection 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 William A. Monaco 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

 SAR 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 25 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

 410-278-5984 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures iv

Acknowledgments v

1. Introduction 1

2. Methods 2

2.1 Subjects ...........................................................................................................................2 

2.2 Apparatus and Procedures...............................................................................................2 

3. Results 5

4. Discussion 8

5. References 10

Appendix A. Additional Raw Data for Subjects 1 and 2 15

Distribution List 18 
iv 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. The stimulus display system........................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2. Psychometric functions for angular movement sensitivity (velocity in degrees per 

second) obtained at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the temporal visual field (right eye) 

for subject 1in this experiment................................................................................................ 6 

Figure 3. Raw data for individual PEST trials determined at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in 

the temporal visual field (right eye) for subject 1 in this experiment..................................... 6 

Figure 4. Psychometric functions for angular movement sensitivity (velocity in degrees per 

second) obtained at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the temporal visual field of the right 

eye for subject 2 in this experiment ........................................................................................ 7 

Figure 5. Raw data for individual PEST trials determined at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in 

the temporal visual field (right eye) for subject 2 in this experiment..................................... 8 
v 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Dr. Joseph Heimerl, Mr. Bruce Amrein and Mr. Joseph Venezia 

for improving the clarity of the manuscript. 

This pilot study was partially funded by the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development 

and Engineering Center through Mr. Joseph Venezia, contract manager and titled “Motion 

Detection in the Far Peripheral Visual Field”. 
vi 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1 

1. Introduction 

The fovea and macular region of the visual system are primarily responsible for the human ability 

to appreciate spatial detail (visual acuity), discriminate color, stereopsis, and other fine discriminations, and for complex tasks such as reading and face recognition (1 through 4). In the peripheral 

visual field, the primary visual functions that are performed involve stimulus detection, flicker and 

motion sensitivity, and visuo-vestibular interactions (5 through 10). Evaluation of different visual 

functions in the peripheral visual field indicates that some tasks such as color discrimination and 

visual acuity are substantially degraded in comparison to the fovea, while others such as stimulus 

detection, motion and flicker detection are only modestly diminished (6 through 8). Peripheral 

visual functions such as stimulus detection, flicker sensitivity, and motion detection are important 

for noticing targets, localizing and orienting objects, directing eye movements toward stimuli for 

more detailed foveal inspection, and enhancing one’s awareness of the environment. For tasks that 

involve the surveillance, detection, and identification of objects, as well as navigation during poor 

visual conditions, the ability to detect movement is critical, particularly for the far peripheral field 

of view. In addition, motion detection in the periphery (motion perimetry) has been found to be a 

valuable clinical ophthalmic tool for early detection and differential diagnosis of ocular and 

neurologic disorders (11 through 17). 

Detection of motion has been a subject of investigation for many years and has been measured in 

terms of displacement (spatial change) thresholds (12, 14, 18 through 30), velocity or rate thresholds (31 through 37), motion coherence thresholds (15 through 17), and contrast thresholds (38). 

Each of these procedures is able to reveal different features of peripheral visual function; these 

procedures are affected by a number of stimulus parameters. In general, motion detection has been 

reported to be a robust attribute of peripheral visual function, (15, 23), revealing fairly consistent 

threshold responses for a variety of different conditions. Evaluations of the far peripheral visual 

field have been reported by a number of investigators (21, 38, 39). However, most of this research 

has been conducted more than 20 years ago with limited field of view (FOV) because of the use of 

cathode ray tube (CRT) displays and computer monitors used for generating displays. The 

evolution and refinement of large screens and immersive environments now allow investigators to 

generate high resolution targets with specific color, motion, and spatial frequency attributes. 

Further, large screens eliminate the restricted FOV and limited testing distances imposed by 

smaller conventional CRTs. Moreover, threshold estimation procedures have been modified in 

recent years to allow accurate and efficient acquisition of measures through the use of Bayesian 

statistical procedures (40 through 44). These events have led to their joint application to the 

investigation of motion detection in the far peripheral visual field. In addition, a recent 

investigation has reported that the neural basis for motion processing in the far temporal visual 

field is different from other portions of the peripheral visual field, so psychophysical examination 

of this topic may yield new insights into the anatomical and physiological basis for these 
2 

differences (39). Motion detection has been reported to be an important factor in the performance 

of real-world tasks (45, 46) and in differential diagnosis of ocular and neurologic disorders (11, 12, 

14 through 17, 47). The purpose of the present investigation is to determine the feasibility of 

measuring motion detection for the far peripheral visual field, to evaluate the ability of Bayesian 

threshold estimation procedures to determine motion thresholds, and to derive a vision test 

methodology that could be applied to real-world task performance activities. To our knowledge, 

far peripheral motion detection has not been explored via the new wide-screen technology and 

Bayesian estimating or forecasting strategies. Most clinical procedures use measures of the near 

periphery (within the central 30 degrees) where a significant portion of ocular pathology is 

exhibited. However, this study explores the far retinal periphery where target detection and 

surveillance are most crucial. In summary, our investigation of motion detection in the far 

peripheral visual field was directed toward three objectives: (1) to examine the feasibility of 

measuring motion detection thresholds in the far temporal visual field beyond 50 degrees’ 

eccentricity, (2) to determine the ability of Bayesian test strategies to measure motion thresholds 

for the far peripheral visual field, and (3) to develop a methodology that would permit motion 

threshold determinations that could be directly applied to “real-world” task performance activities. 

2. Methods 

2.1 Subjects 

Two male subjects (33 and 61 years of age) with normal visual function served as observers for 

this investigation. Both are vision scientists and experienced observers. Each of subjects was 

given an opportunity to practice to become familiar with the experimental arrangement and testing 

paradigm and to become familiar with the psychophysical procedure. 

2.2 Apparatus and Procedures 

The stimulus display consisted of a rear projection system manufactured by Fakespace Systems1

(Marshalltown, Iowa), which included a Christie Digital2 6000 lumen projector (Cypress, 

California) and three 10-foot-high by 12.5-foot-wide screens positioned in a “U” configuration, 

with the observer situated near the center of the display area (6.25 feet from both side screens and 

11.25 feet from the front screen). The display resolution (for each screen) was 1600 x 1200 

pixels, with each pixel subtending 4.3 minutes of arc at the nearest viewing area. Figure 1 shows 

the stimulus display system. The fixation target (depicted larger in the photograph than actually 

presented) was centered on the middle screen at eye level of a seated subject, and moving stimuli 

were projected onto the right screen. All three screens presented a uniform background 

 1Fakespace Systems is a registered trademark of Fakespace Systems, Inc. 

2Christie Digital is a registered trademark of Christie Digital Systems, Inc. 
3 

luminance of 17 candelas per square meter (cd/m2). The fixation target was a circular ring with 

variable gap locations and a thickness and diameter that correspond to approximately a 20/80 

visual acuity. Sixteen combinations of four gaps in the ring (the gaps were up, down, right, and 

left) were presented at 0.5-second intervals. The subject was given a two-button mouse that 

served as his response interface for the two tasks. Initially, the two mouse buttons are pressed to 

synchronize the two computers controlling the targets on the front and right side screen. After 5 

seconds, the fixation target was presented. The subject pressed the left mouse button when two 

horizontal slots or four slots appeared in the ring. The correct responses were recorded as part of 

the divided attention task. The fixation target was 4.3 times greater than the size of a 20/20 visual 

acuity letter in order to present supra-threshold, yet attention-demanding, targets. The moving 

targets were projected onto the right screen and consisted of a single black dot (12.9 cd/m2

) in one 

of three positions: 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the temporal visual field of the right eye, with the 

diameter of the dot subtending an angle of 5 degrees at the subject testing distance. One computer was used for each screen (front and right only) to generate and present targets via page-flip 

animation. Each computer used a 1-millisecond (ms) resolution timer, and these timers were 

synchronized with a simultaneous key board button press. The computers recorded all 

presentation events for both screens and translated those data into Excel3

 format. 

Figure 1. The stimulus display system. 

We initiated stimulus trials by having the observer depress a mouse button. To maintain steady 

fixation on the central stimulus, the observer was required to discriminate two particular patterns of 

the 16 possible combinations of the four gaps in the fixation ring (up, down, left, and right). After 

 3Excel is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation. 
4 

each 500-ms presentation, the subject was given 1 second to respond, and all subject responses 

were recorded. If no response, no data were recorded. The recorded response times were 

compared with correct responses as an indication of the subjects’ attentiveness to the fixation task. 

Two of 16 patterns were selected to increase the task difficulty. Two gap options were chosen, one 

where the slots were in opposition to make the target look like a horizontal flat-bladed screw; the 

other choice was all four gaps making the target look like a Phillips screw. The horizontal and 

Phillips patterns were presented at random, with an expectation of occurrence of approximately 

once every 4 seconds. The fixation target presentation provided a divided attention (central versus 

peripheral) component to the test procedure. Divided attention is a common occurrence for many 

real-world tasks required by the Soldier, such as surveillance, target detection and identification, 

visual search, and related activities. During each motion stimulus trial, only one of the three 

peripheral black dots was presented and once presented, remained stationary for 1 second and then 

was displaced by a variable distance toward the center of the display. The dot remained stationary 

again for 1 second before disappearing and the next black dot was presented. The travel distance 

of the dots was transformed to angular motion at the eye. This transformation compensated for the 

configuration of the display screens (departure from a hemispherical surface) where targets move 

between points on a path parallel to the line of sight. A non-hemispheric screen may influence 

target motion perception over a limited number of pixels. The target size, shape, and illumination 

may be influenced throughout the interval; however, the motion detection data derived in this pilot 

study were appropriate to address our hypothesis. The shape and size of peripheral targets is quite 

variable and is affected by many factors, but the perceived size of targets in the periphery would 

not affect the outcome of this study (48). Future studies will incorporate a software algorithm to 

compensate for non-hemispheric screen factors. 

Motion thresholds that exceeded the 1-second detection interval were determined by means of a 

Bayesian forecasting strategy referred to as the “Best PEST” (Parameter Estimation by Sequential 

Testing) (40, 49), which predicted the angular displacement needed to detect stimulus motion. 

Simultaneously with the presentation of the central fixation target, a moving target was presented 

on the right screen in the subject’s extreme temporal visual field (the left visual field was not tested 

in this pilot study). The subject was asked to respond by pressing the right mouse button when he 

sensed movement of the peripheral target during the 1-second detection interval or within 1 second 

thereafter. These timed responses and presentations were recorded by a Delphi4 compiled program 

and stored into an Excel spreadsheet file that permitted future data analysis and plotting. Three 

simultaneous PEST procedures, one for each of the peripheral dot locations and two stationary 

catch trials (to identify false positive responses), were run in random order. We established the 

initial starting point of the PEST by estimating the range of motion detection in previous test trials. 

Next, the logistic equation with standard deviation equal to one-fifth the range was assumed for the 

psychometric function. Likelihood functions for a “yes” and a “no” response to a test at a given 

threshold were derived from these data. The threshold measured was motion detection, not motion 

 4Delphi is a trademark of Borland Software Corporation. 
5 

direction, thereby allowing the use of a yes/no rather than forced choice procedure. We obtained a 

starting probability density function (p.d.f.) by assuming a yes response at maximum stimulus and 

a no response at the minimum stimulus. The choice of the mode or peak of the p.d.f. was then 

used to test the subject. Depending on the subject’s response, the p.d.f. was revised by the 

appropriate likelihood function by means of Bayse’s conditional probability theorem, namely, the 

subject had a given range of probabilities and responded in a particular way. After ten repetitions, 

the p.d.f. was narrowed to a sufficient extent that the 90% confidence interval could be verified to 

see if it met a pre-determined value. Also, this function could be converted to a cumulative 

distribution over possible thresholds to give the most recent revision of the psychometric function. 

The 90-degree psychometric function estimate chosen in this pilot study was determined from 

research data that quantified thresholds from less eccentric retinal positions. The threshold 

approximation data used in the pilot study did not translate as expected and the resultant range 

chosen was not large enough to prevent a plateau of the data for the 90-degree target location. The 

historical retinal threshold data could not be used to accurately predict the psychometric function; 

it should have allowed for more than the 30-pixel total target movement used in this pilot study. 

The subjects reached the maximum displacement without going higher because of the limited 

motion threshold range selected. This pilot study, however, fortunately provided the data for a 

more appropriate 90-degree psychometric function estimate and motion threshold range for future 

research studies. The number and type of subject in this study were limited by its classification as 

a “pilot study” to determine proof of concept. 

3. Results 

Figure 2 presents psychometric functions for motion thresholds (angular displacement in degrees 

during the 1-second target motion interval) obtained at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the temporal 

visual field of the first observer. The psychometric functions indicate that larger stimulus excursions were needed to detect motion at greater eccentricities, and the slope of the psychometric 

function became shallower, which suggests larger variability at higher stimulus eccentricities. 

Threshold was defined as the movement corresponding to the 50% probability of detection level. 

In accordance with previous investigations (30), motion thresholds increased at greater stimulus 

eccentricities, resulting in motion thresholds of approximately 0.55 deg/sec at 53.4 degrees’ eccentricity, 1.15 deg/sec at 72.6 degrees’ eccentricity, and 2.15 deg/sec at 90 degrees’ eccentricity. 

Figure 3 represents the stimulus movement presented during the threshold estimation trials at each 

of the peripheral eccentricities. Individual symbols indicate individual probability of detection 

values for various stimulus movements, and the solid and dotted lines indicate the best psychometric fit to the data. Stable threshold levels are achieved in fewer than 10 trials, indicating that 

the test procedure is both accurate and efficient. 
6 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Angular velocity in deg / sec

Probability of detection

90 deg

72.6 deg

53.4 deg

Figure 2. Psychometric functions for angular movement sensitivity (velocity in degrees per 

second) obtained at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the temporal visual field (right eye) 

for subject 1in this experiment. (Motion threshold data were obtained with a PEST 

[Bayesian] threshold estimation procedure.) 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial

Angular Velocity in deg/sec

90 deg

72.6 deg

53.4 deg

Figure 3. Raw data for individual PEST trials determined at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the 

temporal visual field (right eye) for subject 1 in this experiment. (After each 

presentation, the PEST procedure refines the estimate of threshold angular velocities at 

each eccentricity until the final value [within a 90% confidence interval] is obtained.) 
7 

Figure 4 presents the psychometric functions for a second observer. The motion threshold at 

53.4 degrees is approximately 0.45 deg/sec, which is slightly lower than that obtained for the first 

observer. The motion threshold at 72.6 degrees is 1.55 deg/sec, which is modestly higher than for 

the first observer, and the 90-degree threshold is approximately 2.15 deg/sec, which is similar to 

that obtained for the first observer. These modest motion threshold differences may be within the 

range of normal subject variability for sensitivity values of the extreme retinal periphery. The 

stimulus excursions for each stimulus trial (figure 5) again demonstrate that stable threshold 

estimates are obtained in a relatively short amount of time. Overall, the results for both observers 

are similar and reveal only modest increases in threshold estimations for greater eccentricities. 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Angular velocity in deg / sec

Probability of detection

90 deg

72.6 deg

53.4 deg

Figure 4. Psychometric functions for angular movement sensitivity (velocity in degrees per second) 

obtained at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the temporal visual field of the right eye for subject 2 

in this experiment. (Motion threshold data were obtained with a PEST threshold estimation 

procedure.) 

Additional raw data are available in appendix A and demonstrate the consistency of each subject’s 

tracking performance in subsequent trials. 
8 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial

Angular velocity in deg / sec

90 Deg

72.6 Deg

53.4 Deg

Figure 5. Raw data for individual PEST trials determined at 53.4, 72.6, and 90 degrees in the temporal 

visual field (right eye) for subject 2 in this experiment. (After each presentation, the PEST 

procedure refines the estimate of threshold angular velocities at each eccentricity until the final 

value [within a 90% confidence interval] is obtained.) 

4. Discussion 

The results obtained from this investigation provide strong evidence to support each of the three 

pilot study goals: First, it is clear that motion detection thresholds for the far peripheral visual 

field can be obtained with current computer and video technology. The stimulus characteristics 

employed for this study involve the use of a rather sophisticated display system that must coordinate 

and synchronize displays on three large projection screens, yet permit accurate and precise control 

of the dynamic stimuli that are displayed. The motion detection thresholds that were obtained for 

this investigation are similar to those that have been reported in previous studies with considerably 

different equipment (12, 30). 

Secondly, the use of a Bayesian forecasting test strategy instead of a method of adjustment, method 

of limits, or “staircase” procedure appears to be feasible for evaluating the far peripheral visual 

field as well. We are unaware of any previous studies that have applied such a threshold estimation methodology for determining performance characteristics in the far periphery. Our findings 

indicate that it is possible to apply Bayesian strategies in an accurate and efficient manner to obtain 

far peripheral motion thresholds and to take advantage of many other beneficial aspects (higher 
9 

reproducibility and reliability, etc.) of these techniques for examining the far peripheral visual 

field. Our findings indicate that it should be possible to obtain reliable thresholds within 10 

stimulus presentations, and further refinement of these procedures could enhance the accuracy 

and efficiency of these procedures. 

Finally, these results indicate that it is possible to evaluate the importance of motion sensitivity as 

a component of task performance in many real-world situations. With this display system, it is 

possible to measure motion sensitivity and compare it to task performance for visual search, object 

detection and identification, and related tasks that can be implemented via the same display system. 

Alternatively, a multitasking situation (common for many real-world tasks) could be initiated on 

the display system, where motion detection is but one of several tasks to perform. In addition, the 

introduction of a dynamic self-motion component could be added to the test regimen by the introduction of a two-dimensional treadmill to simulate real-world mobility tasks. In this type of 

system, it is possible to initiate a myriad of simulation conditions to examine the importance of 

viewing during degraded visibility (darkness, fog, low contrast, blur), multitasking and attentional 

issues, and visuomotor coordination. We are currently in the process of implementing and refining 

such procedures for future research efforts. 

The recent literature reports of different anatomical and physiological processing of visual information for the far temporal visual field also introduces a number of interesting questions (39). Are 

there differences in the salience of various stimulus parameters for this portion of the visual field? 

What purposes do these altered processing methods serve the individual in terms of interaction 

with the environment? What is the importance of this region for locomotion and other mobility 

tasks (45, 46)? Our findings indicate that it is possible to obtain motion detection (displacement) 

thresholds in the far peripheral visual field with the use of Bayesian threshold estimation procedures. With the experimental paradigm outlined in this investigation, we believe that insights into 

many of these issues can be successfully achieved. 
10 

5. References 

1. Lott, L. A.; Haegerstrom-Portnoy, G.; Schneck, M. E.; Brabyn, J. A. Face recognition in the 

elderly. Optom Vis Sci 2005, 82, 874–881. 

2. Brooks, B. E.; Cooper, E. E. What types of visual recognition tasks are mediated by the 

neural subsystem that subserves face recognition? J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2006, 

32, 684–698. 

3. Legge, G. E.; Glenn, A. Fry Award Lecture 1990: three perspectives on low vision reading. 

Optom Vis Sci 1991, 68, 763–769. 

4. Akutsu, H.; Legge, G. E.; Ross, J. A.; Schuebel, K. J. Psychophysics of reading – X. Effects 

of age-related changes in vision. J Gerontol 1991, 46, 325–331. 

5. Anderson, D. R.; Patella, V. M. Automated Static Perimetry. St. Louis; CV Mosby, 1999. 

6. Aulhorn, E.; Harms, H. Visual Perimetry. In Handbook of Sensory Physiology; Vol VII/4 

Visual Psychophysics, (Jameson and Hurvich, eds), Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1972; 102–145. 

7. Johnson, C. A.; Keltner, J. L.; Balestrery, F. G. Acuity profile perimetry. Description of 

technique and preliminary clinical trials. Archives of Ophthalmology 1979, 97, 684–689. 

8. Johnson, C. A.; Keltner, J. L.; Balestrery, F. G. Static and acuity profile perimetry at various 

adaptation levels. Documenta Ophthalmologica 1981, 50, 371–388. 

9. Demer, J. L. Evaluation of vestibular and visual osculomotor function. Otolaryngol Head 

Neck Surg 1995, 112, 16–35. 

10. Guedry, F. E.; Lentz, J. M.; Jell, R. M. Visual-vestibular interactions: I. Influence of 

peripheral vision on suppression of the vestibulo-ocular reflex and visual acuity. Aviat Space 

Environ Med 1979, 50, 205–211. 

11. McKendrick, A. M.; Badcock, D. R.; Morgan, W. H. The detection of both global motion 

and global form in glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005, 46, 3693–3701. 

12. Ruben, S.; Fitzke, F. Correlation of peripheral displacement thresholds and optic disc 

parameters in ocular hypertension. Br J Ophthalmol 1994, 78, 291–294. 

13. Thibos, L. N. Acuity perimetry and the sampling theory of visual resolution. Optom Vis Sci

1998, 75, 399–406. 

14. Verdon-Roe, G. M.; Westcott, M. C.; Viswanathan, A. C.; Fitzke, F. W.; Garway-Heath, D. 

F. Exploration of the psychophysics of a motion displacement hyperacuity stimulus. Invest 

Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006, 47, 4847–4855. 
11 

15. Wall, M.; Jennisch, C. S. Random dot motion stimuli are more sensitive than light stimuli 

for detection of visual field loss in ocular hypertension patients. Optom Vis Sci 1999, 76, 

550–557. 

16. Wall, M.; Jennisch, C. S.; Munden, P. M. Motion perimetry identifies nerve fiber bundlelike 

defects in ocular hypertension. Arch Ophthalmol 1997, 115, 26–33. 

17. Wall, M.; Montgomery, E. B. Using motion perimetry to detect visual field defects in 

patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a comparison with conventional automated 

perimetry. Neurology 1995, 45, 1169-1175. 

18. Bedell, H. E.; Johnson, C. A. The effect of flicker on foveal and peripheral thresholds for 

oscillatory motion. Vision Res 1995, 35, 2179–2189. 

19. Finlay D. Motion perception in the peripheral visual field. Perception 1982, 11, 457–462. 

20. Foster, D. H.; Gravano, S.; Tomoszek, A. Acuity for fine-grain motion and for two-dot 

spacing as a function of retinal eccentricity: Differences in specialization of the central and 

peripheral retina. Vision Res 1989, 29, 1017–1031. 

21. Johnson, C. A. Leibowitz H. W. Practice, refractive error, and feedback as factors 

influencing peripheral motion thresholds. Perception and Psychophysics 1974, 15, 276-280. 

22. Johnson, C. A.; Leibowitz, H. W. Velocity-time reciprocity in the perception of motion: 

foveal and peripheral determinations. Vision Res 1976, 16, 177–180. 

23. Johnson, C. A.; Scobey, R. P. Foveal and peripheral displacement thresholds as a function 

of stimulus luminance, line length and duration of movement. Vision Res 1980, 20, 709–

715. 

24. Johnson, C. A.; Scobey R. P. Effects of reference lines on displacement thresholds at 

various durations of movement. Vision Res 1982, 22, 819–821. 

25. Post, R. B.; Johnson, C. A. Motion sensitivity in central and peripheral vision. Am J Optom 

Physiol Opt 1986; 63: 104–107. 

26. Post, R.B.; Scobey, R.P.; Johnson, C.A. Effects of retinal eccentricity on displacement 

thresholds for unidirectional and oscillatory stimuli. Vision Res 1984, 24, 835–839. 

27. Scobey, R.P.; Johnson, C.A. Psychophysical properties of displacement thresholds for 

moving targets. Acta Psychol 1981, 48, 49–55. 

28. Scobey, R.P.; Johnson, C. A. Displacement thresholds for unidirectional and oscillatory 

movement. Vision Res 1981, 21, 1297–1302. 

29. Wesemann, W.; Norcia, A. M. Contrast dependence of the oscillatory motion threshold 

across the visual field. J Opt Soc Am A 1992, 9, 1663–1671. 
12 

30. Leibowitz, H. W.; Johnson, C. A.; Isabelle, E. Peripheral motion detection and refractive 

error. Science 1972, 177 1207–1208. 

31. Koenderink, J. J.; van Doorn, A. J.; van de Grind, W. A. Spatial and temporal parameters of 

motion detection in the peripheral visual field. J Opt Soc Am A 1985, 2, 252–259. 

32. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A. E.; Slappendel, S. Perimetry of 

contrast detection thresholds of moving spatial sine wave patterns. I. The near peripheral 

visual field (eccentricity 0o-8 o). J Opt Soc Am 1978, 68, 845–849. 

33. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A.E.; Slappendel, S. Perimetry of 

contrast detection thresholds of moving spatial sine wave patterns. II. The far peripheral 

visual field (eccentricity 0o-50 o). J Opt Soc Am 1978, 68, 850–854. 

34. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A.E.; Slappendel, S. Perimetry of 

contrast detection thresholds of moving spatial sine wave patterns. IV. The influence of the 

mean retinal illuminance. J Opt Soc Am 1978, 68, 860–865. 

35. Koenderink, J. J.; Bouman, M. A.; Bueno de Mesquita, A. E.; Slappendel, S. Perimetry of 

contrast detection thresholds of moving spatial sine wave patterns. I. The near peripheral 

visual field (eccentricity 0o-8 o). J Opt Soc Am 1978, 68, 845–849. 

36. Leibowitz, H. W. The relation between the rate threshold for the perception of movement 

and luminance for various durations of exposure. J Exp. Psychol 1955, 49, 209–214. 

37. McKee SP, Nakayama K. The detection of motion in the peripheral visual field. Vision Res

1984; 24: 25–32. 

38. Beard, B. L.; Klein, S. A.; Carney, T. Motion thresholds can be predicted from contrast 

discrimination. J Opt Soc Am A 1997, 14, 2449–2470. 

39. Palmer, S. M.; Rosa, M.G.P. A distinct anatomical network of cortical areas for analysis of 

motion in far peripheral vision. European Journal of Neuroscience 2006, 24, 2389–2405. 

40. Pentland, A. P. Maximum likelihood estimation: the best PEST. Percept Psychophys 1980, 

28, 377–379 

41. Watson, A. B.; Pelli, D. G. QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept 

Psychophys 1983, 33, 113–120. 

42. Bengtsson, B.; Olsson, J.; Heijl, A.; Rootzen H. A new generation of algorithms for 

computerized threshold perimetry, SITA. Acta Ophthalmol 1997, 75, 368-375. 

43. Turpin, A.; McKendrick, A. M.; Johnson, C. A.; Vingrys, A. J. Properties of perimetric 

threshold estimates from Full Threshold, ZEST and SITA-like strategies as determined by 

computer simulation. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2003, 44, 4787–

4795. 
13 

44. Anderson, A. J.; Johnson, C. A. Comparison of the ASA, MOBS and ZEST threshold 

methods. Vision Research 2006 46, 2403–2411. 

45, Kochhar, D. S.; Fraser, T. M. Monocular peripheral vision as a factor in flight safety 

aviation. Space, and Environmental Medicine 1978, 698–706. 

46. Johansson, G. Studies on visual perception of locomotion Perception. 1977, 6, 365–376. 

47. Shabana, N.; Peresm V, C,; Carkeet, A; Chew, P.T.K. Motion perception in glaucoma 

patients: A review. Survey of Ophthalmology 2003, 48, 92–106. 

48. Bedell, H. E.; Johnson, C. A. The perceived size of targets in the peripheral and central 

visual fields. Opththalmic and Physiological Optics 1984, 4, 123–131. 

49. Lieberman, H. R.; Pentland, A. P. Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysical 

thresholds: The Best PEST. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation 1982, 14 (1), 

21–25. 
14 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15 

Appendix A. Additional Raw Data for Subjects 1 and 2 

These data are included for completeness. 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial

Angular velocity in deg / se

c

90 Deg

72.6 Deg

53.4

Detection of Target Angular Velocity - PEST Procedure Estimates by Trial for Three 

Eccentricities (Subject 2) 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial

Angular velocity in deg / se

c

90 Deg

72.6 Deg

53.4
16 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial

Angular velocity in deg / sec

90 Deg

72.6 Deg

53.4

Detection of Target Angular Velocity - PEST Procedure Estimates by Trial for Three 

Eccentricities (Subject 2) 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial

Angular velocity in deg / sec

90 Deg

72.6 Deg

53.4
17 

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trial

Angular velocity in deg / sec

90 Deg

72.6 Deg

53.4

Detection of Target Angular Velocity - PEST Procedure Estimates by Trial for Three 

Eccentricities (Subject 1) 
18 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 2 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS OK T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ML J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MC A D DAVISON 

 320 MANSCEN LOOP STE 115 

 FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MD T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 COMMANDANT USAADASCH 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME J HAWLEY 

 5800 CARTER RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MM V J RICE 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5002 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BUILDING 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARL HRED ARMC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1467B ROOM 336 

 THIRD AVENUE 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AWC FIELD ELEMENT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK MR J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MV HQ USAOTC 

 S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 91012 STATION AVE ROOM 348 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MP D UNGVARSKY 

 BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB 

 415 SHERMAN AVE UNIT 3 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2326 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJF J HANSBERGER 

 JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 115 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY SUITE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23435 
19 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 US ARMY SBCCOM NATICK SOLDIER CTR 

 AMSRD NSC WS E BLDG 3 RM 343 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 10 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ J VENEZIA 

 US ARMY SBCCOM NATICK SOLDIER CTR 

 MODELING & ANALYSIS TEAM 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT J CHEN 

 12423 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY-HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT C KORTENHAUS 

 12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MS C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS BLDG 29808A RM 303 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MAIL STOP 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MF C HERNANDEZ 

 2421 NW AUSTIN RD STE 220 

 FORT SILL OK 73503-9042 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 ROOM 332 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY G1 

 ATTN DAPE MR B KNAPP 

 300 ARMY PENTAGON ROOM 2C489 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300 

 50 PA COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRY 

 ATTN DR FELIX BARKER 

 8360 OLD YORK ROAD 

 ELKINS PARK PA 19027 

 10 DEVERS EYE INST 

 ATTN DR CHRIS JOHNSON 

 GOOD SAMARITAN BLDG 2 

 1040 NW 22ND AVE 2ND FL 

 PORTLAND OR 97210 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK (TECH LIB) 

 BLDG 4600 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP S FOPPIANO 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MR F PARAGALLO 

 BLDG 459 

 10 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR SD W MONACO 

 J KALB 

 BLDG 459