Spatial Offset of Test Field Elements from Surround Elements Affects the Strength of Motion Aftereffects

Static movement aftereffects (MAEs) were measured after adaptation to vertical square-wave luminance gratings drifting horizontally within a central window in a surrounding stationary vertical grating. The relationship between the stationary test grating and the surround was manipulated by varying the alignment of the stationary stripes in the window and those in the surround, and the type of outline separating the window and the surround [no outline, black outline (invisible on black stripes), and red outline (visible throughout its length)]. Offsetting the stripes in the window significantly increased both the duration and ratings of the strength of MAEs. Manipulating the outline had no significant effect on either measure of MAE strength. In a second experiment, in which the stationary test fields alone were presented, participants judged how segregated the test field appeared from its surround. In contrast to the MAE measures, outline as well as offset contributed to judged segregation. In a third experiment, in which test-stripe offset was systematically manipulated, segregation ratings rose with offset. However, MAE strength was greater at medium than at either small or large (180° phase shift) offsets. The effects of these manipulations on the MAE are interpreted in terms of a spatial mechanism which integrates motion signals along collinear contours of the test field and surround, and so causes a reduction of motion contrast at the edges of the test field.

[1]  Mark A. Georgeson,et al.  The temporal range of motion sensing and motion perception , 1990, Vision Research.

[2]  R. Snowden,et al.  Shifts in perceived position following adaptation to visual motion , 1998, Current Biology.

[3]  L. Spillmann,et al.  Visual Motion Aftereffects: Critical Adaptation and Test Conditions , 1996, Vision Research.

[4]  Michael H. Herzog,et al.  Effects of grouping in contextual modulation , 2002, Nature.

[5]  David R. Badcock,et al.  Coherent global motion in the absence of coherent velocity signals , 2000, Current Biology.

[6]  Christian Wehrhahn,et al.  Contextual masking of oriented lines: interactions between surface segmentation cues. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  R. Day,et al.  Reduction or Disappearance of Visual After Effect of Movement in the Absence of Patterned Surround , 1971, Nature.

[8]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Motion streaks provide a spatial code for motion direction , 1999, Nature.

[9]  Shin'ya Nishida,et al.  Influence of motion signals on the perceived position of spatial pattern , 1999, Nature.

[10]  J. Beck.  Effect of orientation and of shape similarity on perceptual grouping , 1966 .

[11]  M. Georgeson,et al.  Feature matching and segmentation in motion perception , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Improvement in visual sensitivity by changes in local context: Parallel studies in human observers and in V1 of alert monkeys , 1995, Neuron.

[13]  C. Gilbert,et al.  Spatial distribution of contextual interactions in primary visual cortex and in visual perception. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.

[14]  C. Koch,et al.  Flanker effects in peripheral contrast discrimination—psychophysics and modeling , 2001, Vision Research.

[15]  R O Duncan,et al.  Occlusion and the Interpretation of Visual Motion: Perceptual and Neuronal Effects of Context , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[16]  D Sullivan,et al.  Strength of Motion Aftereffect Varies with Segregation of Test Field and Surround , 1996 .

[17]  M. K. Albert.  Mechanisms of modal and amodal interpolation. , 2007, Psychological review.

[18]  G Westheimer,et al.  Integration of foveal orientation signals: distinct local and long-range spatial domains. , 2000, Journal of neurophysiology.