Attention and the motion aftereffect

We measured the effects of attentional distraction on the time course and asymptote of motion adaptation strength, using visual search performance (percent correct and reaction time). In the first two experiments, participants adapted to a spatial array of moving Gabor patches, either all vertically oriented (Experiment 1) or randomly oriented (Experiment 2). On each trial, the adapting array was followed by a test array in which all of the test patches except one were identical in orientation and movement direction to their retinotopically corresponding adaptors, but the target moved in the opposite direction to its adaptor. Participants were required to identify the location of the changed target with a mouse click. The ability to do so increased with the number of adapting trials. Neither search speed nor accuracy was affected by an attentionally demanding conjunction task at the fixation point during adaptation, suggesting low-level (preattentive) sites in the visual pathway for the adaptation. In Experiment 3, the same participants were required to identify the one element in the test array that was slowly moving. Reaction times in this case were elevated following adaptation, but once again there was no significant effect of the distracting task upon performance. In Experiment 4, participants were required to make eye movements, so that retinotopically corresponding adaptors could be distinguished from spatiotopically corresponding adaptors. Performance in Experiments 1 and 2 correlated positively with reaction times in Experiment 3, suggesting a general trait for adaptation strength.

[1]  Joshua A. Solomon,et al.  Attention and the motion after effect: New measurements with visual search reveal important individual differences in adaptability , 2018, bioRxiv.

[2]  M. Morgan,et al.  Observers can voluntarily shift their psychometric functions without losing sensitivity , 2011, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[3]  N. Wade,et al.  The After-Effect of Adolf Wohlgemuth's Seen Motion , 2014, Perception.

[4]  M. Morgan Motion adaptation does not depend on attention to the adaptor , 2012, Vision Research.

[5]  Hiroshi Ashida,et al.  A hierarchical structure of motion system revealed by interocular transfer of flicker motion aftereffects , 2000, Vision Research.

[6]  Michael Morgan,et al.  Saccades to Explicit and Virtual Features in the Poggendorff Figure Show Perceptual Biases , 2017, i-Perception.

[7]  J. D. Mollon,et al.  Is there a general trait of susceptibility to simultaneous contrast? , 2010, Vision Research.

[8]  P. Wenderoth,et al.  Retinotopic encoding of the direction aftereffect , 2008, Vision Research.

[9]  R. Addams LI. An account of a peculiar optical phænomenon seen after having looked at a moving body , 1834 .

[10]  R. Dolan,et al.  Attentional load and sensory competition in human vision: modulation of fMRI responses by load at fixation during task-irrelevant stimulation in the peripheral visual field. , 2005, Cerebral cortex.

[11]  Ragnar Granit,et al.  ON INHIBITION IN THE AFTER‐EFFECT OF SEEN MOVEMENT , 1928 .

[12]  M. Morgan Wohlgemuth was right: Distracting attention from the adapting stimulus does not decrease the motion after-effect , 2011, Vision Research.

[13]  A. Chaudhuri Modulation of the motion aftereffect by selective attention , 1990, Nature.

[14]  J. Movshon,et al.  Neuronal Adaptation to Visual Motion in Area MT of the Macaque , 2003, Neuron.

[15]  Franklin A. Graybill,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 3rd ed. , 1974 .

[16]  M. Webster,et al.  Individual differences in visual science: What can be learned and what is good experimental practice? , 2017, Vision Research.

[17]  M. Peruggia Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.) , 2003 .

[18]  Michael Morgan,et al.  Sustained attention is not necessary for velocity adaptation. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[19]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  The fate of task-irrelevant visual motion: perceptual load versus feature-based attention. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[20]  G Sperling,et al.  How to study the kinetic depth effect experimentally. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  Adam Kohn,et al.  Adaptation improves performance on a visual search task. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[22]  M. Morgan A bias-free measure of retinotopic tilt adaptation. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[23]  G. C. Grindley The relation between the rod and cone mechanisms in the after‐effect of seen movement , 1930, Journal of Physiology.

[24]  J. Mollon,et al.  Dichromats detect colour-camouflaged objects that are not detected by trichromats , 1992, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[26]  J. Wolfowitz,et al.  An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics , 1951, Nature.

[27]  C D Frith,et al.  Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task. , 1997, Science.

[28]  Frans A. J. Verstraten,et al.  The Motion Aftereffect:A Modern Perspective , 1998 .

[29]  David Burr,et al.  Spatiotopic perceptual maps in humans: evidence from motion adaptation , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  M. J. Morgan,et al.  Synaesthetic colours do not camouflage form in visual search , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  Peter Thompson,et al.  Velocity after-effects: The effects of adaptation to moving stimuli on the perception of subsequently seen moving stimuli , 1981, Vision Research.

[32]  M. Morgan,et al.  Low-level mediation of directionally specific motion aftereffects: Motion perception is not necessary , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.