Spatial facilitation is involved in flash-lag effect

The flash-lag effect (FLE) is the perceptual phenomenon in which a flash adjacent to a continuously moving object is perceived behind it. Horizontal propagation of activity could explain a shorter latency for moving than for flashed objects but, to our knowledge, no psychophysical data supporting this has been given. We show that two concurrent moving stimuli increase the FLE, presumably due to a latency decrease in movement perception. Our results support the idea that spatial facilitation along the trajectory of a moving object reduces movement perception delay and, therefore, sustains an involvement of latency differences in FLE generation.

[1]  V. Bringuier,et al.  Horizontal propagation of visual activity in the synaptic integration field of area 17 neurons. , 1999, Science.

[2]  K. D. De Valois,et al.  Vernier acuity with stationary moving Gabors. , 1991, Vision research.

[3]  R. L. Valois,et al.  Vernier acuity with stationary moving Gabors , 1991, Vision Research.

[4]  T J Sejnowski,et al.  Motion integration and postdiction in visual awareness. , 2000, Science.

[5]  Romi Nijhawan,et al.  Motion extrapolation in catching , 1994, Nature.

[6]  F. Chavane,et al.  Imaging cortical correlates of illusion in early visual cortex , 2004, Nature.

[7]  Stanley A. Klein,et al.  Extrapolation or attention shift? , 1995, Nature.

[8]  D. Fitzpatrick.  Seeing beyond the receptive field in primary visual cortex , 2000, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[9]  Jean Lorenceau,et al.  Orientation dependent modulation of apparent speed: psychophysical evidence , 2002, Vision Research.

[10]  J. Allman,et al.  Stimulus specific responses from beyond the classical receptive field: neurophysiological mechanisms for local-global comparisons in visual neurons. , 1985, Annual review of neuroscience.

[11]  Daniel Kersten,et al.  Bayesian models of object perception , 2003, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[12]  V. Bringuier,et al.  Synaptic integration fields and associative plasticity of visual cortical cells in vivo , 1996, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[13]  T. Wiesel,et al.  Columnar specificity of intrinsic horizontal and corticocortical connections in cat visual cortex , 1989, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[14]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[15]  Michael J. Berry,et al.  Anticipation of moving stimuli by the retina , 1999, Nature.

[16]  I. Murakami,et al.  Latency difference, not spatial extrapolation , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  J. Gallant,et al.  Natural Stimulation of the Nonclassical Receptive Field Increases Information Transmission Efficiency in V1 , 2002, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  M. Sur,et al.  Subthreshold facilitation and suppression in primary visual cortex revealed by intrinsic signal imaging. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  D. Mackay.  Perceptual Stability of a Stroboscopically Lit Visual Field containing Self-Luminous Objects , 1958, Nature.

[20]  Y. Frégnac,et al.  The “silent” surround of V1 receptive fields: theory and experiments , 2003, Journal of Physiology-Paris.

[21]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Noise characteristics and prior expectations in human visual speed perception , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[22]  Gregor Schöner,et al.  Shorter latencies for motion trajectories than for flashes in population responses of cat primary visual cortex , 2004, The Journal of physiology.