PubMed · 14045731
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J RAPOPORT. 1963. MASSED PRACTICE AND MOTION AFTER-EFFECT.. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1963.17.1.157
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
It has been shown that motion aftereffect (MAE) not only is present at the adapted location but also partially transfers to nearby non-adapted locations. However, it is not clear whether MAE transfers across the fixation point. Since cells in area MSTd have receptive fields that cover both sides of the fixation point and since many MSTd cells, but not cells in earlier visual areas, prefer complex motion patterns such as expansion, we tested cross-fixation transfer of MAE induced by expanding random-dots stimuli. We also used rightward translational motion for comparison. Subjects adapted to motion patterns on a fixed side of the fixation point. Dynamic MAE was then measured with a nulling procedure at both the adapted site and the mirror site across the fixation point. Subjects' eye fixation during stimulus presentation was monitored with an infrared eye tracker. At the adapted site, both the expansion and the translation patterns generated strong MAEs, as expected. However, only the expansion pattern, but not translation pattern, generated significant MAE at the mirror site. This remained true even after we adjusted stimulus parameters to equate the strengths of the expansion MAE and translation MAE at the adapted site. We conclude that there is cross-fixation transfer of MAE for expansion motion but not for translational motion.
Using a speed-matching task, we measured the speed tuning of the dynamic motion aftereffect (MAE). The results of our first experiment, in which we co-varied dot speed in the adaptation and test stimuli, revealed a speed tuning function. We sought to tease apart what contribution, if any, the test stimulus makes towards the observed speed tuning. This was examined by independently manipulating dot speed in the adaptation and test stimuli, and measuring the effect this had on the perceived speed of the dynamic MAE. The results revealed that the speed tuning of the dynamic MAE is determined, not by the speed of the adaptation stimulus, but by the local motion characteristics of the dynamic test stimulus. The role of the test stimulus in determining the perceived speed of the dynamic MAE was confirmed by showing that, if one uses a test stimulus containing two sources of local speed information, observers report seeing a transparent MAE; this is despite the fact that adaptation is induced using a single-speed stimulus. Thus while the adaptation stimulus necessarily determines perceived direction of the dynamic MAE, its perceived speed is determined by the test stimulus. This dissociation of speed and direction supports the notion that the processing of these two visual attributes may be partially independent.
Illusions that produce perceptual suppression despite constant retinal input are used to manipulate visual consciousness. Here we report on a powerful variant of existing techniques, continuous flash suppression. Distinct images flashed successively at approximately 10 Hz into one eye reliably suppress an image presented to the other eye. The duration of perceptual suppression is at least ten times greater than that produced by binocular rivalry. Using this tool we show that the strength of the negative afterimage of an adaptor was reduced by half when it was perceptually suppressed by input from the other eye. The more completely the adaptor was suppressed, the more strongly the afterimage intensity was reduced. Paradoxically, trial-to-trial visibility of the adaptor did not correlate with the degree of reduction. Our results imply that formation of afterimages involves neuronal structures that access input from both eyes but that do not correspond directly to the neuronal correlates of perceptual awareness.