Figural after-effects: "satiation" and adaptation.

A shape-contrast effect for briefly presented stimuli.

“…A pure shape interaction, by definition, should not depend on the retinal coordinates of the interacting shapes. A shapecontrast effect should also occur across large distances, in contrast to figural aftereffects, which decay sharply with distance, the optimum distance ranging from 8' to 3 °, as reported in 13 studies (e.g., Fox, 1951;Kohler & Wallach, 1944;Sagara & Ohyama, 1957).…”

“…The rest of the article is devoted to (a) providing psychophysical evidence for the existence of nonretinotopic shape-contrast effects above and beyond the effects of low-level contour interactions (figural aftereffects; e.g., Fox, 1951;Kohler & Wallach, 1944;Sagara & Ohyama, 1957) and shape-changing apparent motion (representational mo-1 Similar in the sense that the two stimuli activate a common set of visual neurons.…”

The Horizontal-Vertical Illusion and the Relation of Spatial and Retinal Orientations

“…That the apparent measure of a figure is changed with different spatial orientations has also been found in other kinds of optico-geometrical illusions (Obonai, 1930;Tachibana & Morinaga, 1930;Morinaga, 1933), as well as in figural after-effects (Fox, 1951;Morinaga & Yamada, 1956), and other phenomena (Koffka, 1935;KOhler, 1940;Rock, 1956;Rock & Heimer, 1957;Michaels, 1960). All such visual phenomena seem to belong to one type of illustration which indicates the inhomogeneity or the anisotropy of the visual space.…”

Retinal Size as a Determiner of the Direction of Size Distortion in Figural After-Effects

“…An angle of about 30 degrees from the horizontal existed between the I-figure and the fixation point on the stimulus display card. A more recent study by Fox (1951) indicates that this type of situation will give rise both to strong after-effects of the type discovered by Gibson (1937) and also to Kohler-Wallach effects. These are regarded by many investigators (Fox, 1951;Seagrim, 1957Seagrim, , 1958 as being distinctly different types of after-effects, hence the Gibson effects may not follow the same laws asdo the size effects in question.…”

“…A more recent study by Fox (1951) indicates that this type of situation will give rise both to strong after-effects of the type discovered by Gibson (1937) and also to Kohler-Wallach effects. These are regarded by many investigators (Fox, 1951;Seagrim, 1957Seagrim, , 1958 as being distinctly different types of after-effects, hence the Gibson effects may not follow the same laws asdo the size effects in question. Since it is impossible in the Prentice study to separate the Gibson from the KohlerWallach effects, it is impossible to know exactly what the study does show.…”