“Extinction” of the McCollough effect does not transfer interocularly

Abstract

A McCollough effect was induced in subjects by having them view typical adapting stimuli binocularly for 5 min. In the control condition, the strength of the McCollough effect was measured 20 min after the end of the adaptation. The strength was measured during monocular and binocular viewing of a test pattern via a color cancellation technique. Monocular strengths for the two eyes of a given subject were equal to each other and slightly weaker than the binocular strength. In the test condition, 15 min of the 20 min between adaptation and testing were spent monocularly viewing black and white gratings of the same orientation and spatial frequency as the adapting gratings. The strength of the effect as measured ipsilaterally was markedly decreased from that in the control condition. The strength of the effect as measured with the contralateral eye showed only a small decrease from that of the control condition. This finding is relevant to various models of the McCollough effect and related color aftereffects, especially those that posit a "learning" type of mechanism between achromatic spatial channels (which exhibit clear interocular transfer of various achromatic effects) and monocular color channels.When McCollough (1965) first reported the orientationcontingent color aftereffect that bears her name, she noted that the effect was monocular, in the sense that viewing the adapting pattern with only one eye results in a strong effect in the adapted eye but no effect in the other eye.

Individual differences in McCollough effects: A study of twins

“…They also suggest that these differences may have a systematic biological component. We concur with Savoy (1984) that it will be important to determine whether factors such as general metabolic activity affect variability in MEs.…”

The McCollough effect: Dissociating retinal from spatial coordinates

“…Some researchers of the ME, particularly those who advocate a Pavlovian interpretation, use the terms "learning," "Pavlovian conditioning," and "associative learning" interchangeably (e.g., Siegel et al, 1992). Yet not all learning accounts of the ME need be Pavlovian conditioning (e.g., Savoy, 1984;Skowbo, 1984). If one adopts instead a broad view of learning, then the present outcome does not rule out all learning-based explanations, but it does make some classes of explanations seem less sensible.…”

Visual aftereffect of texture density contingent on color of frame

“…The effects are retinotopic and monocular (MeCollough, 1965;Murch, 1972;but, cf. MacKay & MacKay, 1975;Savoy, 1984;and Vidyasagar, 1976, for evidence of dichoptic and binocular effects) and are specific to retinal orientation (Bedford & Reinke, 1993;Ellis, 1976), retinal size (Harris, 1970), and retinal color (i.e., wavelength, rather than perceived color; Thompson & Latchford, 1986). There is also evidence that conscious perceptual discriminability of the form stimuli is not critical to the effect (Humphrey, Gurnsey, & Fekete, 1991;Thompson & Travis, 1989).…”