Motion adaptation shifts apparent position without the motion aftereffect

Whitney, David; Cavanagh, Patrick

doi:10.3758/bf03194830

Cited by 39 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…and D.W. exceeded 24 min of arc and was significant for both subjects: for D.B., t(30) ϭ 3.3, p Ͻ .05; for D.W., t(30) ϭ 4.1, p Ͻ .05. Because the perceived misalignment was comparable to that in the first experiment, any scaling with eccentricity (Durant & Johnston, 2004;Whitney & Cavanagh, 2003;Wright & Johnston, 1985) is countered by a decrease in the effect with increasing distance from the perceived motion (Durant & Johnston, 2004). An omnibus analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect for the group, F(9, 39) ϭ 2.45, p Ͻ .05.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Contribution of bottom-up and top-down motion processes to perceived position.

Whitney

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceived position depends on many factors, including motion present in a visual scene. Convincing evidence shows that high-level motion perception--which is driven by top-down processes such as attentional tracking or inferred motion--can influence the perceived position of an object. Is high-level motion sufficient to influence perceived position, and is attention to or awareness of motion direction necessary to displace objects' perceived positions? Consistent with previous reports, the first experiment revealed that the perception of motion, even when no physical motion was present, was sufficient to shift perceived position. A second experiment showed that when subjects were unable to identify the direction of a physically present motion stimulus, the apparent locations of other objects were still influenced. Thus, motion influences perceived position by at least two distinct processes. The first involves a passive, preattentive mechanism that does not depend on perceptual awareness; the second, a top-down process that depends on the perceptual awareness of motion direction. Each contributes to perceived position, but independently of the other.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Contribution of bottom-up and top-down motion processes to perceived position.

Whitney

2006

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, besides causing the MAE, motion adaptation is also able to produce a shift of position in the direction opposite the adapted one (position aftereffect [PA]; McGraw, Whitaker, Skillen, & Chung, 2002), independently from the MAE (Whitney & Cavanagh, 2003), and even when motion was just "implied" from static pictures (Pavan, Cuturi, Maniglia, Casco, & Campana, 2011). Although PA has only been found with prolonged adaptations and with test stimuli overlapping the adapted region (McGraw et al, 2002;Pavan et al, 2011;Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probing the involvement of the earliest levels of cortical processing in motion extrapolation with rapid forms of visual motion priming and adaptation

Battaglini

Campana

Camilleri

2014

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we investigated the effect of brief motion priming and adaptation, occurring at the earliest levels of the cortical visual stream, on time-to-contact (TTC) estimation of a target passing behind an occluder. By using different exposure times of directional motion presented in the occluder area prior to the target's disappearance behind it, our aim was to modulate (prime or adapt) the extrapolated motion of the invisible target, thus producing different TTC estimates. Our results showed that longer (yet subsecond) exposures to motion in the same direction as the target produced late TTC estimates, whereas shorter exposures produced shorter TTC estimates, indicating that rapid forms of motion adaptation and motion priming affect extrapolated motion. Our findings suggest that motion extrapolation might occur at the earliest levels of cortical processing of motion, at which these rapid mechanisms of priming and adaptation take place.Keywords Motion extrapolation . Motion adaptation . Visual motion priming . Time to contact . TTC . rMAE . rVMPIn everyday life, moving objects frequently appear and disappear behind occluders, such as in the case of a motorbike passing beyond stationary cars and buses parked in front of us. Despite the disappearance of the motorbike, we are very good at estimating the time of the bike's reappearance between one vehicle and the other. This process has been psychophysically studied using the prediction-of-motion (PM) paradigm, in which participants estimate the time to contact (TTC): Having seen the initial part of an object's trajectory prior to occlusion, they are asked to estimate when the object moving behind the occluder would reach a given point, usually the end of the occluder. By means of manipulating the variables related to the object's motion (e.g., velocity, occlusion distance, and/or duration) or other features (size, contrast, or shape), many studies have investigated the underlying processes involved in PM

show abstract

“…Whitney and Cavanagh [35] have demonstrated clear shifts in spatial position with no corresponding MAE. McKeefry et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotopic perceptual maps in humans: evidence from motion adaptation

Turi

Burr²

2012

Proc. R. Soc. B.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How our perceptual experience of the world remains stable and continuous despite the frequent repositioning eye movements remains very much a mystery. One possibility is that our brain actively constructs a spatiotopic representation of the world, which is anchored in external—or at least head-centred—coordinates. In this study, we show that the positional motion aftereffect (the change in apparent position after adaptation to motion) is spatially selective in external rather than retinal coordinates, whereas the classic motion aftereffect (the illusion of motion after prolonged inspection of a moving source) is selective in retinotopic coordinates. The results provide clear evidence for a spatiotopic map in humans: one which can be influenced by image motion.

show abstract

Motion adaptation shifts apparent position without the motion aftereffect

Cited by 39 publications

References 37 publications

Contribution of bottom-up and top-down motion processes to perceived position.

Contribution of bottom-up and top-down motion processes to perceived position.

Probing the involvement of the earliest levels of cortical processing in motion extrapolation with rapid forms of visual motion priming and adaptation

Spatiotopic perceptual maps in humans: evidence from motion adaptation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About