No abstract

No abstract

Perception is the active construction of a neural state that correlates with biologically relevant elements present in the environment. This correlation, far from affording a one-to-one mapping, nonetheless guides our actions towards adaptive behaviors, thus being forged under evolutionary constraints. Since the construction of a percept is an intrinsically ambiguous process, perceptual discrepancies can arise from identical stimulation patterns. The recognition of these discrepancies is termed illusion, which originates, however, from the same physiological mechanisms that ordinarily lead to standard perception. Emanating from different sources, such as optical, sensory and cognitive factors, visual illusions are useful tools in accessing the physiological basis of perceptual processes and their interaction with motor planning and execution. Here we examine the biological roots of visual illusions and their interplay with some neurobiological, philosophical and esthetical issues.

Simple reaction time (SRT) in response to visual stimuli can be influenced by many stimulus features. The speed and accuracy with which observers respond to a visual stimulus may be improved by prior knowledge about the stimulus location, which can be obtained by manipulating the spatial probability of the stimulus. However, when higher spatial probability is achieved by holding constant the stimulus location throughout successive trials, the resulting improvement in performance can also be due to local sensory facilitation caused by the recurrent spatial location of a visual target (position priming). The main objective of the present investigation was to quantitatively evaluate the modulation of SRT by the spatial probability structure of a visual stimulus. In two experiments the volunteers had to respond as quickly as possible to the visual target presented on a computer screen by pressing an optic key with the index finger of the dominant hand. Experiment 1 (N = 14) investigated how SRT changed as a function of both the different levels of spatial probability and the subject's explicit knowledge about the precise probability structure of visual stimulation. We found a gradual decrease in SRT with increasing spatial probability of a visual target regardless of the observer's previous knowledge concerning the spatial probability of the stimulus. Error rates, below 2%, were independent of the spatial probability structure of the visual stimulus, suggesting the absence of a speed-accuracy trade-off. Experiment 2 (N = 12) examined whether changes in SRT in response to a spatially recurrent visual target might be accounted for simply by sensory and temporally local facilitation. The findings indicated that the decrease in SRT brought about by a spatially recurrent target was associated with its spatial predictability, and could not be accounted for solely in terms of sensory priming. Correspondence