Three Processes Which Occur during Adaptation to Transformation of the Visual Field

Changes in visually guided responses, including spatial judgments of object or limb position, which result from optical transformation of visual input are usually referred to as adaptation. The purpose of this paper is to show that the response changes observed in adaptation can be conceptualized as resulting from at least three distinct components—behavioral compensation, sensory adaptation, and visual shift. Data from a series of experiments show the nature of the interaction of behavioral compensation and sensory adaptation. Implications of this latter finding for intermanual transfer are discussed.

[1]  Margaret Wooster.  Certain factors in the development of a new spatial co-ordination. , 1923 .

[2]  R Over.  Effect of the angle of tilt of the inspection figure on the magnitude of a kinesthetic aftereffect. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  S. C. Mclaughlin,et al.  Changes in straight-ahead eye position during adaptation to wedge prisms , 1967 .

[4]  R. Kalil,et al.  Persistence of Ocular Rotation following Compensation for Displaced Vision , 1966, Perceptual and motor skills.

[5]  L. Festinger,et al.  Efference and the conscious experience of perception , 1967 .

[6]  R H Day,et al.  Spatial adaptation and aftereffect with optically transformed vision: effects of active and passive responding and the relationship between test and exposure responses. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[8]  R. H. Day,et al.  The effects of spatial judgments on the perceptual aftereffect resulting from prismatically transformed vision , 1966 .

[9]  G. Singer,et al.  The influence of two varieties of proprioceptive information on judgments of the spatial position of an object while the visual input is transformed , 1968 .

[10]  R. Day,et al.  SPATIAL AFTEREFFECTS WITHIN AND BETWEEN KINESTHESIS AND VISION. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  S. C. Mclaughlin,et al.  Oculomotor adaptation to wedge prisms with no part of the body seen , 1966 .

[12]  J. Gibson.  Adaptation with negative after-effect. , 1937 .

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

[14]  J E Foley,et al.  Comparison of training methods in the production of prism adaptation. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  R. Day,et al.  Visual Orientation Illusion following Judgments with a Tilted Visual Field , 1969, Nature.

[16]  Franz Thurner.  STUDIES OF ARTIFICIALLY DISTURBED SENSORY COORDINATION IN MAN. , 1967 .

[17]  J. Gibson,et al.  Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in the perception of tilted lines. I. Quantitative studies , 1937 .

[18]  R Held,et al.  Adaptation to displaced vision: a change in the central control of sensorimotor coordination. , 1971, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[19]  E. R. Hammer.  Temporal factors in figural aftereffects. , 1949, The American journal of psychology.

[20]  Joel Goldberg,et al.  Immediate correction and adaptation based on viewing a prismatically displaced scene , 1966 .

[21]  R H Day,et al.  Visual Spatial Aftereffect from Prolonged Head-Tilt , 1966, Science.

[22]  R H Day,et al.  Sensory adaptation and behavioral compensation with spatially transformed vision and hearing. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  H. Wallach,et al.  Figural aftereffects; an investigation of visual processes. , 1944 .

[24]  R. H. Day,et al.  Involvement of Neck Proprioceptive System in Visual After-Effect from Prolonged Head Tilt , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  Ray Over,et al.  AN EXPERIMENTALLY INDUCED CONFLICT BETWEEN VISION AND PROPRIOCEPTION , 1966 .