Reduction or Disappearance of Visual After Effect of Movement in the Absence of Patterned Surround

Day, Robert H.; Strelow, Edward R.

doi:10.1038/230055a0

Cited by 80 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present finding is consistent with other psychophysical results showing that motion perception often depends on the visual context [22][23][24][25][26][27][28] . For example, the motion aftereffect is markedly reduced if the motion is presented alone, in the absence of any external reference frame 22 , and enhanced if the background is moving in the opposite direction from the adapted motion 26 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…For example, the motion aftereffect is markedly reduced if the motion is presented alone, in the absence of any external reference frame 22 , and enhanced if the background is moving in the opposite direction from the adapted motion 26 . The presence of form that might serve as a reference frame in such experiments is confounded, however, by substantial changes in the retinal image (for example, the presence of a conspicuous background versus a blank background).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What constitutes an efficient reference frame for vision?

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vision requires a reference frame. To what extent does this reference frame depend on the structure of the visual input, rather than just on retinal landmarks? This question is particularly relevant to the perception of dynamic scenes, when keeping track of external motion relative to the retina is difficult. We tested human subjects' ability to discriminate the motion and temporal coherence of changing elements that were embedded in global patterns and whose perceptual organization was manipulated in a way that caused only minor changes to the retinal image. Coherence discriminations were always better when local elements were perceived to be organized as a global moving form than when they were perceived to be unorganized, individually moving entities. Our results indicate that perceived form influences the neural representation of its component features, and from this, we propose a new method for studying perceptual organization.According to the laws of physics, the position and motion of an object can only be defined relative to some reference frame. Neural representations of visual position and motion must abide by the same principles as physical motion, but what is the nature of the reference frame in which the visual system attains efficient representation of position and motion? The nervous system receives visual information in retinocentric coordinates; then this information is transformed into head-centered coordinates for stable perception during eye movements and into a body-centered reference frame to link perception and action [1][2][3] . Depending on the reference frame, neural representations of motion can be more or less accurate (veridical with respect to the physical world) and more or less efficient (computationally complex). Analogously, planetary motions are both more accurate and more efficient when represented in a heliocentric, rather than a geocentric, reference frame.Retinal coordinates, along with eye-position correction, are often assumed to be the primary reference frame for neural representations of position and motion. The spatial layout of photoreceptors in the retina is replicated throughout the anatomical hierarchy of visual areas as retinotopically organized maps 4 . This retinotopic organization preserves the original retinal coordinates, which could serve as the reference frame for encoding the motion and position of objects. In the human visual system, however, the motion of an object on the

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What constitutes an efficient reference frame for vision?

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, the reduction of movement aftereffects without a stationary patterned surround is greater with linear adapting movement than with rotatory adapting movement (Day & Strelow, 1971). …”

Section: Distinction Between Induced Movement With and Withoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview.

Reinhardt-Rutland¹

1988

Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Induced movement, illusory movement in a stationary stimulus resulting from adjoining movement, has received steady experimental investigation over the last 70 years or so. It is observed under different viewing conditions in a wide variety of displays that differ considerably in overall size and in form of inducing and induced stimuli. Explanations have been diverse, some being based on relations within the display and others invoking mediation by other aspects of the observer's perception. Probably, no one explanation can account for all forms of induced movement. Current knowledge about induced movement may have important implications for visual perception of object morion. Among possibly important factors is size of display, which can vary from two small spots (e.g., Carr & Hardy, 1920) to displays occupying most of the observer's visual field (e.g., Post, 1986).A second major purpose of this overview is to examine explanations for induced movement (Explanations section). Duncker's (1929Duncker's ( /1938 findings have had an important influence here, although many of his suggestions have subsequently been shown to require at least some modification. For example, his theory I thank J. Morss for reading an earlier version of this article, J. Ravey for translation, and two anonymous referees for helpful suggestions.

show abstract

“…All gratings had a contrast of 0.34, with the average luminance of the gratings and the surrounding screen being 20 cd/cm2. In the first three experiments, a low spatial frequency (0.5 cpd) stationary sinusoidal horizontal grating (contrast of 0.8) filled the rest of the screen during the test period to enhance the aftereffect (Day and Strelow, 1971). In the center of the display, a fixation cross was presented continuously during adaptation and test (see Fig.…”

Section: Stimuli and Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing local and remote motion aftereffects

Dubé

Grünau

1992

Spatial Vis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-A new method, using phase-reversing sinusoidal gratings to cancel perceived motion, was developed to measure the motion aftereffect (MAE). This technique was used to show the existence of a remote MAE, i.e. an MAE in areas that were not directly stimulated during adaptation. In several experiments, this remote MAE was compared to the local MAE. The remote effect was generally weaker and of shorter duration. It showed no directional tuning within the investigated range, as compared to a tuning of ± 60 deg of the local MAE. There was no adaptation effect to the component gratings of a plaid, indicating that the plaid was treated as a coherent pattern. The local MAE showed clear spatial frequency tuning, whereas the remote MAE varied little with spatial frequency difference, although there was a tendency towards frequencies lower than the adaptation frequency. The possibility is considered that both local and remote MAEs are generated in extrastriate areas.

show abstract

Reduction or Disappearance of Visual After Effect of Movement in the Absence of Patterned Surround

Cited by 80 publications

References 5 publications

What constitutes an efficient reference frame for vision?

What constitutes an efficient reference frame for vision?

Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview.

Comparing local and remote motion aftereffects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About