Orientation-Selective Adaptation during Motion-Induced Blindness

Abstract

When a global moving pattern is superimposed on high-contrast stationary or slowly moving stimuli, the latter occasionally disappear for periods of several seconds (Motion-Induced Blindness, MIB). In this study, an adaptation paradigm was used to determine if orientation-selective adaptation still occurs for the stimulus that is no longer visible. Two slowly-drifting, high-contrast Gabor patches were presented to observers. As soon as both patches disappeared, one was eliminated from the screen. After 2 s , two low contrast Gabor patches were presented as tests at the same locations and observers were asked to report their orientations. The observers' performance was significantly higher when the orientation of low contrast test patch was orthogonal to the orientation of the high 2 contrast adapting patch (p < 0.0001) for the location where the patch was present during MIB, even though it was perceptually invisible. The observers' performance was not significantly different at the adjacent control location where the stimulus was absent during the MIB. Although no stimulus was visible at either location, orientation selective adaptation was only preserved for the location at which the patch remained present. Since orientation information is processed in low-level visual areas like V1, we conclude that MIB originates in an area higher than V1.

Asymmetric visual interactions across the boundary of awareness

“…Specifically, we showed a dissociation between early visual processes and the perceptual experience. The current findings converge with previous studies, showing adaptation after-effects induced by perceptually invisible features (Montaser-Kouhsari et al, 2004;O'Shea & Crassini, 1981;Wade, 1980;Wade & Wenderoth, 1978). However, it was shown that the strength of these after-effects is not affected by the stimulus strength within a range of contrast levels, thus allowing for preserved after-effects with reduced effective contrast of the suppressed object (Blake, Tadin, Sobel, Raissian, & Chong, 2006).…”

“…Current evidence shows that objects rendered invisible by MIB can effectively produce orientationselective adaptation (Montaser-Kouhsari, Moradi, Zandvakili, & Esteky, 2004), negative after-images (Hofstoetter, Koch, & Kiper, 2004), and still retain grouping relations (Bonneh et al, 2001;Mitroff & Scholl, 2005). Here we attempted to specify the information available on perceptually invisible stimuli at the feature and object levels of visual processing.…”

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

“…Previous results were mixed with respect to that possibility (MitroV & Scholl, 2004;Montaser-Kouhsari, Moradi, Zandvakili, & Esteky, 2004). However, with stable Wxation away from the target disk, it should be possible to keep physical oVset of the invisible disk below detection thresholds (cf.…”

A monocular contribution to stimulus rivalry

“…Based on this belief, a number of studies have assessed the vulnerability of the TEAE to suppression induced by different visual disappearance phenomena (1), with the aim being to infer the loci of neural events underlying those phenomena (9). Accordingly, the reported weakening of the TEAE by conventional binocular-rivalry suppression implies attenuated neural responses in early cortical areas during suppression in conventional rivalry (10)(11)(12), whereas the undiminished TEAE observed following suppression produced by motioninduced blindness implicates a more central neural process in that form of suppression (13). Here, we extended this strategy to suppression associated with stimulus rivalry.…”