Modulating motion-induced blindness with depth ordering and surface completion

Abstract

Motion-induced blindness is a striking phenomenon in which salient static visual stimuli "disappear" for seconds at a time in the presence of specific moving patterns. Here we investigate whether the phenomenon is due to surface completion of the moving patterns. Stereo-depth information was added to the motion stimulus to create depth ordering between the static and moving components of the display. Depth ordering consistent with the perceptual occlusion of the static elements increased motion-induced blindness whereas placing the moving components behind the static elements decreased the static dot disappearance. In a second experiment we used an induced surface stimulus configuration to drive the motion-induced blindness phenomenon as further evidence of the importance of surface completion and interactions during visual processing.

Visual Rivalry Without Spatial Conflict

“…This dependence on spatial conflict was strongly suggested by results of studies that employed rivalry between perceptually completed surfaces (e.g., dot arrays of different colors). When the surfaces were perceptually completed, rivalry ensued, but when the perceptual completion was disturbed-and thereby the spatial overlap between the surfaces ended-rivalry was eliminated (Bonneh et al, 2001;Graf et al, 2002;Kaufman, 1963;Maier et al, 2005;Silver & Logothetis, 2004;Watson et al, 2004).…”

Asymmetric visual interactions across the boundary of awareness

“…MIB disappearances last for up to several seconds, even with high contrast, relatively large stimuli, and when located near fixation: eccentricity of 18 (Bonneh et al, 2001;Bonneh, Donner, Cooperman, Heeger, & Sagi, 2014). As for Troxler (1804) fading, the mechanisms underlying MIB was suggested to involve low-level processes such as contrast adaptation (Caetta, Gorea, & Bonneh, 2007;Gorea & Caetta, 2009), and filling-in (Hsu, Yeh, & Kramer, 2006), as well as depth ordering and surface completion (Graf, Adams, & Lages, 2002). However, recent findings show additional components in MIB related to the neural competition between the static target and the moving background (Bonneh et al, 2001;Bonneh et al, 2014;Donner, Sagi, Bonneh, & Heeger, 2008).…”

Preceding stimulus awareness augments offset-evoked potentials: Evidence from motion-induced blindness

“…In an attempt to understand the eVect, motion-induced blindness has also been compared and linked to other related visual phenomena, such as inattentional blindness (Chun & Marois, 2002), surface completion (cf. Graf, Adams, & Lages, 2002), Wlling-in (Hsu, Yeh, & Kramer, 2004), or binocular rivalry (Blake & Logothetis, 2002;Carter & Pettigrew, 2003;Funk & Pettigrew, 2003). So far, the physiological mechanism responsible for motion-induced blindness is not known but some authors argue for a role of neural competition (Keysers & Perrett, 2002), possibly resolved by the activity in areas higher up the cortical hierarchy, such as MT, suppressing processes within regions sensitive to visual surface information in the primary visual cortex (Kanai, PaVen, Gerbino, & Verstraten, 2004).…”