Peripheral Movement, Induced Movement, and Aftereffects from Induced Movement

Abstract

Substantial rotatory induced movement and aftereffects associated with induced movement were observed in a large statis patterned disc bounded at its periphery by a rotating patterned annulus. The area of the annulus was less than one tenth that of the disc, so its peripheral location seemed to be important in eliciting these phenomena. This was confirmed in two experiments comparing a peripheral annulus and a relatively central anulus in their ability to elicit induced movement and aftereffects in the same large static field. Aspects of the vection (induced self-movement) phenomenon may have been involved in generation of induced movement. This suggested that the motion-inducing properties of the peripheral annulus might have derived from: (i) its eccentric location in the perceiver's visual field; or (ii) its location with regard to the display itself. Two further experiments showed that (ii) was important for the elicitation of both induced movement and the aftereffects, and (i) was important for the elicitation of induced movement. Neurons responsive to relative movement in conjunction with lateral inhibition may provide a partial explanation for these effects. However, they do not explain why the visual system can assign considerable movement to a large static field under the conditions of these experiments.

Induced movement in the visual modality: An overview.

“…Induced rotation has received relatively little attention since Duncker's (1929Duncker's ( /1938 early observations (Day, 1981;Reinhardt-Rutland, 1981). Much the same is true of induced movement in depth (Fame, 1972(Fame, , 1977Gogel & Griffin, 1982;ReinhardtRutland, 1983c), and induced expansion and contraction have apparently received independent investigation in only one study (Wade & Swanston, 1984).…”

“…Peripheral location of inducing stimulus relative to induced stimulus is important in aftereffect of induced rotation (Reinhardt-Rutland, 1981) and aftereffect of induced movement in depth (Reinhardt-Rutland, 1984). After tracking linear movement of a pattern, surrounded by a stationary pattern, a negative aftereffect can be observed in the tracked pattern after it stops (Morgan, Ward, & Brussel, 1976).…”

“…Over and Lovegrove (1973) and Levi and Schor (1984) used spatial-frequency gratings drifting in one direction. For induced rotation, the inducing stimulus has often been a patterned annulus surrounding and concentric with the induced stimulus (Day, 1981;Reinhardt-Rutland, 1981). For induced movement in depth, the inducing stimulation has included a surface oscillating in depth (Fame, 1970(Fame, , 1972, binocularly generated oscillation in depth of dots (Gogel & Griffin, 1982), and a rotating spiral (Reinhardt-Rutland, 1983c.…”

Induced rotation: Temporal measures

“…No subsequent direct investigation of this effect seems to have been done until the recent work of Day (1981) and Reinhardt-Rutland (1981).…”

“…Other researchers, however, have used as their measure the proportion of time for which the stimulus was perceived as moving (e.g., Reinhardt-Rutland, 1981). Although there is no reason to believe that these measures should be differentially affected by the stimulus variables investigated, it was thought prudent to conduct partial replications of Mapperson and Lovegrove (1989) using the same subjects and conditions, with this alternative measure.…”