The distance gradient in kinesthetic figural aftereffect.

Orientation-contingent tactual size aftereffects

“…Under the conditioning model, a strong unconditioned stimulus should be expected to produce a stronger conditioned response, but the H90-VI 0 inspection block produced a numerically-though not significantly-weaker aftereffect than the H70-V30 block. On the other hand, as noted earlier, the relationship between the magnitude of the contingent aftereffect and the dimensions of the inspection blocks is consistent with the results of studies of simple kinesthetic figural aftereffects (Charles & Duncan, 1959;Kohler & Dinnerstein, 1947). Thus, the present aftereffect may display more of the characteristics of sensory processes and fewer characteristics of conditioning.…”

“…The repulsion reaches a maximum at some particular separation between test and inspection contours, declining at higher and lower levels of separation. But even when the test and inspection contours coincide, the inspection contours typically exert some influence, usually involving a reduction in the perceived size of a test object (for example, Charles & Duncan, 1959;Kohler & Dinnerstein, 1947;Kohler & Wallach, 1944).…”

“…This procedure produces simple negative aftereffects in opposite directions in the two hands-that is, an aftereffect of overestimation occurs in one hand and an aftereffect of underestimation occurs in the other. Presenting a single inspection block, wide Or narrow, to a single hand also produces a simple negative aftereffect that can be readily measured-and indeed, Charles and Duncan (1959) have argued that such a method constitutes a superior procedure for making quantitative measurements. In the contingent aftereffect that is the subject of the present study, in the earlier taper aftereffect of Kohler and Dinnerstein, and in the contingent size aftereffect of Walker and Shea, two negative aftereffects occur in a single handand those aftereffects are in opposite directions.…”

Interdigital transfer of kinesthetic after-effects

“…Charles and Duncan (1959) have demonstrated a distance gradient in KAE; I stimuli either much larger or smaller than test (T) stimuli result in little or no KAE. The distance gradient is predictable on the basis of satiation theory (Kohler & Dinnerstein, 1947).…”

“…Two experiments investigated the effect of using a different finger for inspection (I) than is used in making judgments on the size of a kinesthetic aftereffect (KAE) Although the procedures for inducing kinesthetic after-effects (KAE) have been investigated for such variables as size of the inspection (1) stimulus (Charles & Duncan, 1959), amount and distribution of I trials (Carlson, 1963), and attention to the I stimulus (Bakan & Thompson, 1963), there has been no investigation of the role of the fingers used during I stimulation and for judgments on the size of KAE. Charles and Duncan (1959) have demonstrated a distance gradient in KAE; I stimuli either much larger or smaller than test (T) stimuli result in little or no KAE.…”