Visual adaptation to tilt and displacement: Sameor different processes?

Visual adaptation to tilt and displacement were compared to test whether they were dependent on the same or different processes. Although interocular transfer was essentially complete for both transforms, marked differences occurred between the two kinds of optical transforms in terms of rate of adaptation as a function of exposure time and transform magnitude, level of compensation, and rate of decay. Tilt and displacement appear to be quantitatively different, consistent with the idea of a different locus for each adaptation effect. This conclusion was supported by the absence of a correlation between individual performance under the two transforms. The possibility is discussed that displacement and tilt adaptation involve independent visual systems for the perception of location and form.

[1]  A. Mack,et al.  Eye-dependent and disparity adaptation to opposite visual-field rotations. , 1970, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  R. Held,et al.  TWO TYPES OF ADAPTATION TO AN OPTICALLY-ROTATED VISUAL FIELD. , 1964, The American journal of psychology.

[3]  H. Wallach,et al.  A PASSIVE CONDITION FOR RAPID ADAPTATION TO DISPLACED VISUAL DIRECTION. , 1963, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  D Quinlan.  Effects of sight of the body and active locomotion in perceptual adaptation. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[5]  M. Ritter,et al.  EXPERIMENTS TO THE PROBLEM OF INTEROCULAR TRANSFER. , 1965, Acta psychologica.

[6]  S M Ebenholtz.  Readaptation and decay after exposure to optical tilt. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.

[7]  H. Pick,et al.  Gaze-contingent prism adaptation: optical and motor factors. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  Arjen Mack.  The role of movement in perceptual adaptation to a tilted retinal image , 1967 .

[9]  Herbert L. Pick,et al.  Adaptation to prismatic distortion , 1964 .

[10]  J. Bossom,et al.  DECAY OF PRISM AFTEREFFECTS. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  R. Held.  Dissociation of visual functions by deprivation and rearrangement , 1968 .

[12]  S M Ebenholtz.  Transfer and decay functions in adaptation to optical tilt. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  R. Held.  Exposure-history as a factor in maintaining stability of perception and coordination. , 1961, The Journal of nervous and mental disease.

[14]  S M Ebenholtz,et al.  On the relation between interocular transfer of adaptation and Hering's law of equal innervation. , 1970, Psychological review.

[15]  C. S. Harris.  Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision. , 1965, Psychological review.

[16]  H. Pick,et al.  Visual and proprioceptive adaptation to optical displacement of the visual stimulus. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  J Van Laer,et al.  Adaptation to Displaced Vision after Experience with Lesser Displacements , 1968, Perceptual and motor skills.

[18]  H. Mikaelian,et al.  Relation between adaptation to rearrangement and the source of motor-sensory feedback , 1967 .

[19]  I. Rock.  The nature of perceptual adaptation , 1969 .

[20]  C. S. Harris.  Adaptation to Displaced Vision: Visual, Motor, or Proprioceptive Change? , 1963, Science.

[21]  R. Held,et al.  Neonatal deprivation and adult rearrangement: complementary techniques for analyzing plastic sensory-motor coordinations. , 1961, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[22]  Robert E. Dewar,et al.  Adaptation to displaced vision: Amount of optical displacement and practice , 1970 .

[23]  E Efstathiou.  Effects of exposure time and magnitude of prism transform on eye-hand coordination. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  S M Ebenholtz,et al.  Adaptation to a rotated visual field as a function of degree of optical tilt and exposure time. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  R. B. Morant,et al.  Adaptation to Prismatically Rotated Visual Fields , 1965, Science.