Motion signals can bias the perceived position of visual stimuli. While the apparent position of a stimulus is biased in the direction of motion, electro-physiological studies have shown that the receptive field (RF) of neurons is shifted in the direction opposite to motion, at least in cats and macaque monkeys. In humans, it remains unclear how motion signals affect population RF (pRF) estimates. We addressed this question using psychophysical measurements and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) at 7 Tesla. We systematically varied two factors: the motion direction of the carrier pattern (inward, outward and flicker motion) and the contrast of the mapping stimulus (low and high stimulus contrast). We observed that while physical positions were identical across all conditions, presence of low-contrast motion, but not high-contrast motion, shifted perceived stimulus position in the direction of motion. Correspondingly, we found that pRF estimates in early visual cortex were shifted against the direction of motion for low-contrast stimuli but not for high stimulus contrast. We offer an explanation in form of a model for why apertures are perceptually shifted in the direction of motion even though pRFs shift in the opposite direction.Keywords visual neuroscience · position perception · population receptive fields · visual field projections 1 IntroductionAn important task of the visual system is to infer the location of objects in our environment. A wide range of psychophysical studies shows that motion signals lead to systematic localisation biases [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. In illusions called motion-induced position shifts (MIPS), a coherent motion signal shifts the apparent location of a stimulus [1]. For example, when drifting Gabor patches are presented within a stationary aperture, the stimulus appears shifted in the direction of motion [2,6,7]. Such illusions raise the question how our visual system encodes location and how, in the case of MIPS, the apparent position shift can be explained. Furthermore, they offer a dissociation between the physical and the perceived position of a stimulus that can clarify which neuronal processes correspond to the apparent position of the stimulus.
MOTION DISPLACES POPULATION RECEPTIVE FIELDSThe magnitude of MIPS is known to depend on spatial and temporal properties of the stimulus. MIPS are larger when the stimulus is shown for longer duration (tested up to 453 ms; [6]), presented at higher speed [6,9] or at higher eccentricities [10,6,9]. The magnitude of MIPS furthermore depends on spatial blurring of the presented stimulus. Blurred stimulus edges lead to larger perceptual displacements than sharp edges [4,9] and increasing the size of the Gaussian envelope of a Gabor stimulus yields larger MIPS [4]. Arnold et al. [7] have suggested that MIPS are driven by modulation of apparent contrast of the stimulus. Supporting this suggestion, they reported perceived position shifts when observers were asked to match the extremities of two contrast envelopes (low-contrast region),...