1996
DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00156-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of dark and equiluminant occlusion on the interocular transfer of visual aftereffects

Abstract: Lehmkuhle and Fox [(1976) Vision Research, 16, 428-430] reported that interocular transfer (IOT) of a translational motion aftereffect (MAE) was greater if the non-adapting eye viewed an equiluminant field than if it viewed a dark field. They recommended equiluminant occlusion of the non-adapted eye when measuring IOT of aftereffects. We tested this proposal in three experiments. First, we assessed IOT with equiluminant and dark occlusion for three different classes of aftereffects. Although transfer was great… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
1
1

Year Published

1998
1998
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The logic behind this is that the units that integrate more sophisticated motion exist in extrastriate areas (such as MT and MST) that are largely binocular, whereas linear motion might also be encoded by monocular neurons in V1. However, surprisingly few studies have directly compared relevant conditions (see table 1), and not all those that have found evidence supporting this arrangement (McColl & Mitchell, 1998;Timney et al, 1996). Our experiments find the opposite pattern of results, with translational motion typically producing stronger IOT (mean of 86%) than motion requiring large receptive fields (mean of 51%) (see figures 6c and 6d, and figures 8a and 8b).…”
Section: Architectures For Cortical Motion Processingcontrasting
confidence: 55%
“…The logic behind this is that the units that integrate more sophisticated motion exist in extrastriate areas (such as MT and MST) that are largely binocular, whereas linear motion might also be encoded by monocular neurons in V1. However, surprisingly few studies have directly compared relevant conditions (see table 1), and not all those that have found evidence supporting this arrangement (McColl & Mitchell, 1998;Timney et al, 1996). Our experiments find the opposite pattern of results, with translational motion typically producing stronger IOT (mean of 86%) than motion requiring large receptive fields (mean of 51%) (see figures 6c and 6d, and figures 8a and 8b).…”
Section: Architectures For Cortical Motion Processingcontrasting
confidence: 55%
“…Participants viewed the stimuli in a dimly lit room at a distance of 57 cm, using a chin-rest for stability. All adaptation and test stimuli were presented monocularly on a dark background; the other eye viewed an equiluminant dark background (luminance 14.5 cd m À2 ) devoid of features (Timney et al 1996). Each individual Glass pattern consisted of 300 individual bright dots, each 0.2 deg60.2 deg square, presented on a dark background.…”
Section: Stimuli and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%