“…Some other features of the c-WWI are also in line with such a proposal: It is a bistable percept that occurs sporadically, and it requires a period of viewing time before it is experienced (Andrews & Purves, 2005;Holcombe et al, 2005;Kline et al, 2004Kline et al, , 2006VanRullen, 2007). However, other features are contradictory to this adaptation view but are compatible with the proposal that it is a consequence of aliasing in at least one motion perception system due to discrete sampling: It has an optimal stimulus temporal frequency (of about 10 Hz) (VanRullen et al, 2005); it does not depend on the stimulus' spatial frequency (Purves et al, 1996;Simpson et al, 2005;VanRullen et al, 2005); it occurs for motion of both firstorder stimuli (luminance-defined) and second-order stimuli (contrast-defined) (VanRullen et al, 2005), even though these two types of stimuli may be processed by different areas of the brain (Dumoulin, Baker, Hess, & Evans, 2003;Vaina & Soloviev, 2004; although see Nishida, Sasaki, Murakami, Watanabe, & Tootell, 2003;Seiffert, Somers, Dale, & Tootell, 2003); and its strength decreases with eccentricity, whereas both the static and flicker MAEs increase with eccentricity (VanRullen, 2007), indicating that it is not solely driven by adaptation. Furthermore, the bistability of the c-WWI can be reconciled with the notion of discrete attentional sampling by proposing that adaptation leads to a competition for dominance between the veridical percept generated by the lower-level motion perception system, which is unaffected by discrete sampling, and its alias from the attention-based system where the c-WWI originates.…”