A visual illusion known as the motion aftereffect is considered to be the perceptual manifestation of motion sensors that are recovering from adaptation. This aftereffect can be obtained for a specific range of adaptation speeds with its magnitude generally peaking for speeds around 3 deg s-1. The classic motion aftereffect is usually measured with a static test pattern. Here, we measured the magnitude of the motion aftereffect for a large range of velocities covering also higher speeds, using both static and dynamic test patterns. The results suggest that at least two (sub)populations of motion-sensitive neurons underlie these motion aftereffects. One population shows itself under static test conditions and is dominant for low adaptation speeds, and the other is prevalent under dynamic test conditions after adaptation to high speeds. The dynamic motion aftereffect can be perceived for adaptation speeds up to three times as fast as the static motion aftereffect. We tested predictions that follow from the hypothesised division in neuronal substrates. We found that for exactly the same adaptation conditions (oppositely directed transparent motion with different speeds), the aftereffect direction differs by 180 degrees depending on the test pattern. The motion aftereffect is opposite to the pattern moving at low speed when the test pattern is static, and opposite to the high-speed pattern for a dynamic test pattern. The determining factor is the combination of adaptation speed and type of test pattern.

We have previously reported a transparent motion after-e¡ect indicating that the human visual system comprises separate slow and fast motion channels. Here, we report that the presentation of a fast motion in one eye and a slow motion in the other eye does not result in binocular rivalry but in a clear percept of transparent motion. We call this new visual phenomenon`dichoptic motion transparency' (DMT). So far only the DMT phenomenon and the two motion after-e¡ects (the`classical' motion after-e¡ect, seen after motion adaptation on a static test pattern, and the dynamic motion after-e¡ect, seen on a dynamic-noise test pattern) appear to isolate the channels completely. The speed ranges of the slow and fast channels overlap strongly and are observer dependent. A model is presented that links after-e¡ect durations of an observer to the probability of rivalry or DMT as a function of dichoptic velocity combinations. Model results support the assumption of two highly independent channels showing only within-channel rivalry, and no rivalry or after-e¡ect interactions between the channels. The ¢nding of two independent motion vision channels, each with a separate rivalry stage and a private line to conscious perception, might be helpful in visualizing or analysing pathways to consciousness.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Strength of the motion aftereffect (MAE) is most often quantified by its duration, a high-variance and rather 'subjective' measure. With the help of an automatic gain-control model we quantitatively relate nulling-thresholds, adaptation strength, direction discrimination threshold, and duration of the dynamic MAE (dMAE). This shows how the nulling threshold, a more objective two-alternative forced-choice measure, relates to the same system property as MAE-durations. Two psychophysical experiments to test the model use moving random-pixel-arrays with an adjustable luminance signal-to-noise ratio. We measure MAE-duration as a function of adaptation strength and compare the results to the model prediction. We then do the same for nulling-thresholds. Model predictions are strongly supported by the psychophysical findings. In a third experiment we test formulae coupling nulling threshold, MAE-duration, and direction-discrimination thresholds, by measuring these quantities as a function of speed. For the medium-to-high speed range of these experiments we found that nulling thresholds increase and dMAE-durations decrease about linearly, whereas direction discrimination thresholds increase exponentially with speed. The model description then suggests that the motion-gain decreases, while the noise-gain and model's threshold increase with speed.

No abstract

One of the many interesting questions in motion aftereffect (MAE) research is concerned with the location(s) along the pathway of visual processing at which certain perceptual manifestations of this illusory motion originate. One such manifestation is the unidirectionality of the MAE after adaptation to moving plaids or transparent motion. This unidirectionality has led to the suggestion that the origin of this MAE might be a single source (gain control) located at, or beyond areas that are believed to be responsible for the integration of motion signals. In this report we present evidence against this suggestion using a simple experiment. For the same adaptation pattern, which consisted of two orthogonally moving transparent patterns with different speeds, we show that the direction of the resulting unidirectional MAE depends on the nature of the test stimulus. We used two kinds of test patterns: static and dynamic. For exactly the same adaptation conditions, the difference in MAE direction between testing with static and dynamic patterns can be as large as 50 degrees. This finding suggests that this MAE is not just a perceptual manifestation of a passive recovery of adapted motion sensors but an active integrative process using the output of different gain controls. A process which takes place after adaptation. These findings are in line with the idea that there are several sites of adaptation along the pathway of visual motion processing and that the nature of the test pattern determines the fate of our perceptual experience of the MAE.