Adaptation to size affects saccades with long but not short latencies

Maintained exposure to a specific stimulus property—such as size, color, or motion—induces perceptual adaptation aftereffects, usually in the opposite direction to that of the adaptor. Here we studied how adaptation to size affects perceived position and visually guided action (saccadic eye movements) to that position. Subjects saccaded to the border of a diamond-shaped object after adaptation to a smaller diamond shape. For saccades in the normal latency range, amplitudes decreased, consistent with saccading to a larger object. Short-latency saccades, however, tended to be affected less by the adaptation, suggesting that they were only partly triggered by a signal representing the illusory target position. We also tested size perception after adaptation, followed by a mask stimulus at the probe location after various delays. Similar size adaptation magnitudes were found for all probe-mask delays. In agreement with earlier studies, these results suggest that the duration of the saccade latency period determines the reference frame that codes the probe location.

[1]  Ralph Weidner,et al.  Attention modulates visual size adaptation. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[2]  J. Smeets,et al.  The Müller-Lyer illusion affects visuomotor updating in the dorsal visual stream , 2015, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Ralph Weidner,et al.  Rescaling Retinal Size into Perceived Size: Evidence for an Occipital and Parietal Bottleneck , 2015, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  Scott O. Murray,et al.  Object-Centered Shifts of Receptive Field Positions in Monkey Primary Visual Cortex , 2014, Current Biology.

[5]  Eli Brenner,et al.  Time course of the effect of the Muller-Lyer illusion on saccades and perceptual judgments. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[6]  Eckart Zimmermann,et al.  Spatial Position Information Accumulates Steadily over Time , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  M. Morrone,et al.  Blood Oxygen Level-Dependent Activation of the Primary Visual Cortex Predicts Size Adaptation Illusion , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[8]  M. Heath,et al.  Stimulus-driven saccades are characterized by an invariant undershooting bias: no evidence for a range effect , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  D. Samuel Schwarzkopf,et al.  Subjective Size Perception Depends on Central Visual Cortical Magnification in Human V1 , 2013, PloS one.

[10]  Mingsha Zhang,et al.  Parietal Cortical Neuronal Activity Is Selective for Express Saccades , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  Simon B. Eickhoff,et al.  Ventral and Dorsal Stream Interactions during the Perception of the Müller-Lyer Illusion: Evidence Derived from fMRI and Dynamic Causal Modeling , 2012, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[12]  M. Goodale,et al.  Afterimage size is modulated by size-contrast illusions. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[13]  Maria Concetta Morrone,et al.  Visual motion distorts visual and motor space. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[14]  M. Goodale Transforming vision into action , 2011, Vision Research.

[15]  D. Samuel Schwarzkopf,et al.  The surface area of human V1 predicts the subjective experience of object size , 2010, Nature Neuroscience.

[16]  N. Bruno,et al.  The effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion on saccades is modulated by spatial predictability and saccadic latency , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[17]  Paul Dassonville,et al.  Visuospatial contextual processing in the parietal cortex: An fMRI investigation of the induced Roelofs effect , 2008, NeuroImage.

[18]  C. de’Sperati,et al.  Blind Saccades: An Asynchrony between Seeing and Looking , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  Ralph Weidner,et al.  The neural mechanisms underlying the Müller-Lyer illusion and its interaction with visuospatial judgments. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[20]  D. Kersten,et al.  The representation of perceived angular size in human primary visual cortex , 2006, Nature Neuroscience.

[21]  Richard Dyde,et al.  Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don't? , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  T. Isa Intrinsic processing in the mammalian superior colliculus , 2002, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[23]  M. Fahle,et al.  P M Max−planck−institut Fü R Biologische Kybernetik the Eeects of Visual Illusions on Grasping , 1999 .

[24]  Matthew Heath,et al.  The effect of a pictorial illusion on closed-loop and open-loop prehension , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.

[25]  C. Clifford,et al.  A functional angle on some after-effects in cortical vision , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[26]  M. Fahle,et al.  Grasping Visual Illusions: No Evidence for a Dissociation Between Perception and Action , 2000, Psychological science.

[27]  M. Goodale,et al.  The effects of delay on the kinematics of grasping , 1999, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  S. Chieffi,et al.  Visual illusion and action , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  M. Goodale,et al.  Size-contrast illusions deceive the eye but not the hand , 1995, Current Biology.

[30]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[31]  L. Jakobson,et al.  A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them , 1991, Nature.

[32]  Amelia R. Hunt,et al.  Saccadic eye movements and perceptual judgments reveal a shared visual representation that is increasingly accurate over time , 2011, Vision Research.

[33]  J. Perner,et al.  Getting a grip on illusions: replicating Stöttinger et al [Exp Brain Res (2010) 202:79–88] results with 3-D objects , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[34]  B. Fischer,et al.  Human express saccades: extremely short reaction times of goal directed eye movements , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[35]  M. Goodale,et al.  Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[36]  M. Fischer How sensitive is hand transport to illusory context effects? , 2000, Experimental Brain Research.