Comparing local and remote motion aftereffects

Abstract

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.

Motion adaptation shifts apparent position without the motion aftereffect

“…Anstis & Reinhardt-Rutland, 1976;Ashida, Susami, & Osaka, 1996;Bonnet & Pouthas, 1972;Swanston & Wade, 1992;Wade, Spillmann, & Swanston, 1996;Weisstein, Maguire, & Berbaum, 1977;Zaidi & Sachtler, 1991). But this property is consistent with the remote MAE found with dynamic test patterns (Culham et al, 2000;Snowden & Milne, 1997;von Grünau & Dubé, 1992). Also, the position aftereffect of motion showed complete interocular transfer, similar to the dynamic MAE (Nishida et al, 1994).…”

Short-latency ocular following responses to motion stimuli are strongly affected by temporal modulations of the visual content during the initial fixation period

“…Surprisingly, the suppression was maximal when the SF of the moving pattern was much lower (2.6, 2.0, and 3.3 times) than that of the fixation one, and it is not trivial to imagine a mechanism which would account for such a mismatch. However, this finding mimics similar observations made in earlier MAE experiments ( Ledgeway & Hutchinson, 2009 ; von Grunau & Dube, 1992 ); although in these latter studies the mismatch only developed for higher SF adapting stimuli. Hutchinson and Ledgeway (2007) observed similar phenomenon while measuring the SF tuning of motion detection mechanisms using the technique of visual masking.…”

“…Studies of the MAE, which probed MAE spatial frequency (SF) tuning (e.g. Ashida & Osaka, 1994 ; Cameron, Baker, & Boulton, 1992 ; Ledgeway & Hutchinson, 2009 ; von Grunau & Dube, 1992 ) report strongest effects when the adapting and testing SFs are similar, although this correspondence does seem to break down under certain conditions ( Ledgeway & Hutchinson, 2009 ; von Grunau & Dube, 1992 ). However, the traditional MAE paradigm involves much longer adaptation periods than the fixation period used in this study, so detailed comparisons may be hazardous.…”

Default perception of high-speed motion

“…In contrast to the MAE, when viewing a static pattern, the illusory motion here is many times faster than the inducer. [Some stimuli used to study the MAE do lead to large jumps (12)(13)(14), but these are imposed by the narrow-band gratings that are used.] There is no known reason why the visual transient should be perceived as coherent motion at all; the fact that it is perceived as very fast motion seems to violate the minimal motion principle.…”