scholarly journals Motion adaptation shifts apparent position without the motion aftereffect

2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (7) ◽  
pp. 1011-1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Whitney ◽  
Patrick Cavanagh
2012 ◽  
Vol 279 (1740) ◽  
pp. 3091-3097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Turi ◽  
David Burr

How our perceptual experience of the world remains stable and continuous despite the frequent repositioning eye movements remains very much a mystery. One possibility is that our brain actively constructs a spatiotopic representation of the world, which is anchored in external—or at least head-centred—coordinates. In this study, we show that the positional motion aftereffect (the change in apparent position after adaptation to motion) is spatially selective in external rather than retinal coordinates, whereas the classic motion aftereffect (the illusion of motion after prolonged inspection of a moving source) is selective in retinotopic coordinates. The results provide clear evidence for a spatiotopic map in humans: one which can be influenced by image motion.


Perception ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 170-170
Author(s):  
N J Wade ◽  
V Pardieu ◽  
M T Swanston

The local motion adaptation at the basis of the motion aftereffect (MAE) can be expressed in a variety of ways, depending upon the structure of the test display (N J Wade, L Spillmann, M T Swanston Vision Research in press). This has been demonstrated with MAEs from induced motion: if adaptation is to two moving (Surround) gratings, an MAE is seen in the central grating if two gratings surround it, but in the flanking gratings when they are themselves surrounded in the test stimulus. We report two experiments in which the characteristics of the test display and of the local adaptation process have been examined. In experiment 1, five vertical gratings were presented during adaptation; the outermost and central gratings remained stationary and those flanking the centre moved laterally. The test display always consisted of three stationary gratings: either the central three or the lower three equivalent to the locations of the adaptation display. MAEs were only recorded in the Centre and not in the Surround, irrespective of whether the Centre or Surround had been exposed to motion during adaptation. MAEs in the Centre were in opposite directions, reflecting the influence of Surround adaptation. The influence of adapting motion in different directions was examined in experiment 2. The upper grating always received the same direction of motion during adaptation, and the lower grating was absent, stationary, or moving in the same or in the opposite direction. The results indicate that an MAE is visible in the upper grating only after differential adaptation between the upper and lower gratings.


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 1180-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lages ◽  
Stephanie C. Boyle ◽  
Rob Jenkins

Visual performance of human observers depends not only on the optics of the eye and early sensory encoding but also on subsequent cortical processing and representations. In two experiments, we demonstrated that motion adaptation can enhance as well as impair visual acuity. Observers who experienced an expanding motion aftereffect exhibited improved letter recognition, whereas observers who experienced a contracting motion aftereffect showed impaired letter recognition. We conclude that illusory enlargement and shrinkage of a visual stimulus can modulate visual acuity.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 702-702
Author(s):  
A. L. F. Lee ◽  
H. Lu

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (8) ◽  
pp. 149-149
Author(s):  
W. Curran ◽  
C. P. Benton

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (12) ◽  
pp. 2848-2864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Morgan ◽  
Joshua A Solomon

We measured the effects of attentional distraction on the time course and asymptote of motion adaptation strength, using visual search performance (percent correct and reaction time). In the first two experiments, participants adapted to a spatial array of moving Gabor patches, either all vertically oriented (Experiment 1) or randomly oriented (Experiment 2). On each trial, the adapting array was followed by a test array in which all of the test patches except one were identical in orientation and movement direction to their retinotopically corresponding adaptors, but the target moved in the opposite direction to its adaptor. Participants were required to identify the location of the changed target with a mouse click. The ability to do so increased with the number of adapting trials. Neither search speed nor accuracy was affected by an attentionally demanding conjunction task at the fixation point during adaptation, suggesting low-level (preattentive) sites in the visual pathway for the adaptation. In Experiment 3, the same participants were required to identify the one element in the test array that was slowly moving. Reaction times in this case were elevated following adaptation, but once again there was no significant effect of the distracting task upon performance. In Experiment 4, participants were required to make eye movements, so that retinotopically corresponding adaptors could be distinguished from spatiotopically corresponding adaptors. Performance in Experiments 1 and 2 correlated positively with reaction times in Experiment 3, suggesting a general trait for adaptation strength.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Randall ◽  
Arvid Guterstam

SummaryRecent work suggests that our brains may generate subtle, false motion signals streaming from other people to the objects of their attention, aiding social cognition. For instance, brief exposure to static images depicting other people gazing at objects made subjects slower at detecting subsequent motion in the direction of gaze, suggesting that looking at someone else’s gaze caused a directional motion adaptation. Here we confirm, using a more stringent method, that viewing static images of another person gazing in a particular direction, at an object, produced motion aftereffects in the opposite direction. The aftereffect was manifested as a change in perceptual decision threshold for detecting left versus right motion. The effect disappeared when the person was looking away from the object. These findings suggest that the attentive gaze of others is encoded as an implied agent-to-object motion that is sufficiently robust to cause genuine motion aftereffects, though subtle enough to remain subthreshold.


1966 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 1003-1008 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHIGEMASA SUMI
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document