A motion aftereffect from still photographs depicting motion

A photograph of an action can convey a vivid sense of motion. Does the inference of motion from viewing a photograph involve the same neural and psychological representations used when one views physical motion? In this study, we tested whether implied motion is represented by the same direction-selective signals involved in the perception of real motion. We made use of the motion aftereffect, a visual motion illusion. Three experiments showed that viewing a series of static photographs with implied motion in a particular direction produced motion aftereffects in the opposite direction, as assessed with real-motion test probes. The transfer of adaptation from motion depicted in photographs to real motion demonstrates that the perception of implied motion activates direction-selective circuits that are also involved in processing real motion.     

Dual adaptation of apparent concomitant motion contingent on head rotation frequency

Perceived movement of a stationary visual stimulus during head motion was measured before and after adaptation intervals during which participants performed voluntary head oscillations while viewing a moving spot. During these intervals, participants viewed the spot stimulus moving alternately in the same direction as the head was moving during either .25- or 2.0-Hz oscillations, and then in the opposite direction as the head at the other of the two frequencies. Postadaptation measures indicated that the visual stimuli were perceived as stationary only if traveling in the same direction as that viewed during adaptation at the same frequency of head motion. Thus, opposite directions of spot motion were perceived as stationary following adaptation depending on head movement frequency. The results provide an example of the ability to establish dual (or “context-specific”) adaptations to altered visual—vestibular feedback.     

An acceleration illusion caused by underestimation of stimulus velocity during pursuit eye movements: Aubert-Fleischl revisited

When the eyes pursue a fixation point that sweeps across a moving background pattern, and the fixation point is suddenly made to stop, the ongoing motion of the background pattern seems to accelerate to a higher velocity. Experiment I showed that this acceleration illusion is not caused by the sudden change in (i) the relative velocity between background and fixation point, (ii) the velocity of the retinal image of the background pattern, or (iii) the motion of the retinal image of the rims of the CRT screen on which the experiment was carried out. In experiment II the magnitude of the illusion was quantified. It is strongest when background and eyes move in the same direction. When they move in opposite directions it becomes less pronounced (and may disappear) with higher background velocities. The findings are explained in terms of a model proposed by the first author, in which the perception of object motion and velocity derives from the interaction between retinal slip velocity information and the brain's 'estimate' of eye velocity in space. They illustrate that the classic Aubert-Fleischl phenomenon (a stimulus seems to be moving slower when pursued with the eyes than when moving in front of stationary eyes) is a special case of a more general phenomenon: whenever we make a pursuit eye movement we underestimate the velocity of all stimuli in our visual field which happen to move in the same direction as our eyes, or which move slowly in the direction opposite to our eyes.     

A motion aftereffect from visual imagery of motion

Mental imagery is thought to share properties with perception. To what extent does the process of imagining a scene share neural circuits and computational mechanisms with actually perceiving the same scene? Here, we investigated whether mental imagery of motion in a particular direction recruits neural circuits tuned to the same direction of perceptual motion. To address this question we made use of a visual illusion, the motion aftereffect. We found that following prolonged imagery of motion in one direction, people are more likely to perceive real motion test probes as moving in the direction opposite to the direction of motion imagery. The transfer of adaptation from imagined to perceived motion provides evidence that motion imagery and motion perception recruit shared direction-selective neural circuitry. Even in the absence of any visual stimuli, people can selectively recruit specific low-level sensory neurons through mental imagery.     

Motion induction from biological motion

A new type of motion illusion is described in which ambiguous motion becomes unidirectional on superimposition of a human figure walking on a treadmill. A point-light walker in profile was superimposed on a vertical counterphase grating backdrop. Eleven na?ve observers judged the apparent direction of motion against the grating as left or right in a two-alternative forced-choice task and found that the grating appeared to drift in a direction opposite to the walking. The illusion disappeared when the point lights moved in scrambled configurations. This indicates that the illusion is caused by biological motion that provides recognition of gaits. A human figure walking backwards produced no illusion because of the difficulty in identifying the gait. This indicates that the illusion is determined by translational motion rather than form represented from biological motion.     

Aftereffect of high-speed motion.

A visual illusion known as the motion aftereffect is considered to be the perceptual manifestation of motion sensors that are recovering from adaptation. This aftereffect can be obtained for a specific range of adaptation speeds with its magnitude generally peaking for speeds around 3 deg s-1. The classic motion aftereffect is usually measured with a static test pattern. Here, we measured the magnitude of the motion aftereffect for a large range of velocities covering also higher speeds, using both static and dynamic test patterns. The results suggest that at least two (sub)populations of motion-sensitive neurons underlie these motion aftereffects. One population shows itself under static test conditions and is dominant for low adaptation speeds, and the other is prevalent under dynamic test conditions after adaptation to high speeds. The dynamic motion aftereffect can be perceived for adaptation speeds up to three times as fast as the static motion aftereffect. We tested predictions that follow from the hypothesised division in neuronal substrates. We found that for exactly the same adaptation conditions (oppositely directed transparent motion with different speeds), the aftereffect direction differs by 180 degrees depending on the test pattern. The motion aftereffect is opposite to the pattern moving at low speed when the test pattern is static, and opposite to the high-speed pattern for a dynamic test pattern. The determining factor is the combination of adaptation speed and type of test pattern.     

Auditory motion aftereffects

Observers were adapted to simulated auditory movement produced by dynamically varying the interaural time and intensity differences of tones (500 or 2,000 Hz) presented through headphones. At lO-sec intervals during adaptation, various probe tones were presented for 1 sec (the frequency of the probe was always the same as that of the adaptation stimulus). Observers judged the direction of apparent movement (“left” or “right”) of each probe tone. At 500 Hz, with a 200-deg/sec adaptation velocity, “stationary” probe tones were consistently judged to move in the direction opposite to that of the adaptation stimulus. We call this result an auditory motion aftereffect. In slower velocity adaptation conditions, progressively less aftereffect was demonstrated. In the higher frequency condition (2,000 Hz, 200-deg/sec adaptation velocity), we found no evidence of motion aftereffect. The data are discussed in relation to the well-known visual analog-the “waterfall effect.” Although the auditory aftereffect is weaker than the visual analog, the data suggest that auditory motion perception might be mediated, as is generally believed for the visual system, by direction-specific movement analyzers.     

Attentional sampling of multiple wagon wheels

Attending to a periodic motion stimulus can induce illusory reversals of the direction of motion. This continuous wagon wheel illusion (c-WWI) has been taken to reflect discrete sampling of motion information by visual attention. An alternative view is that it is caused by adaptation. Here, we attempt to discriminate between these two interpretations by asking participants to attend to multiple periodic motion stimuli: The discrete attentional sampling account, but not the adaptation account, predicts a decrease of c-WWI temporal-frequency tuning with set size (with a single periodic motion stimulus the c-WWI is tuned to a temporal frequency of 10 Hz). We presented one to four rotating gratings that occasionally reversed direction while participants counted reversals. We considered reversal overestimations as manifestations of the c-WWI and determined the temporal-frequency tuning of the illusion for each set size. Optimal temporal frequency decreased with increasing set size. This outcome favors the discrete attentional sampling interpretation of the c-WWI, with a sampling rate for each individual stimulus dependent on the number of stimuli attended.     

Retinal and extraretinal information in movement perception: how to invert the Filehne illusion

During a pursuit eye movement made in darkness across a small stationary stimulus, the stimulus is perceived as moving in the opposite direction to the eyes. This so-called Filehne illusion is usually explained by assuming that during pursuit eye movements the extraretinal signal (which informs the visual system about eye velocity so that retinal image motion can be interpreted) falls short. A study is reported in which the concept of an extraretinal signal is replaced by the concept of a reference signal, which serves to inform the visual system about the velocity of the retinae in space. Reference signals are evoked in response to eye movements, but also in response to any stimulation that may yield a sensation of self-motion, because during self-motion the retinae also move in space. Optokinetic stimulation should therefore affect reference signal size. To test this prediction the Filehne illusion was investigated with stimuli of different optokinetic potentials. As predicted, with briefly presented stimuli (no optokinetic potential) the usual illusion always occurred. With longer stimulus presentation times the magnitude of the illusion was reduced when the spatial frequency of the stimulus was reduced (increased optokinetic potential). At very low spatial frequencies (strongest optokinetic potential) the illusion was inverted. The significance of the conclusion, that reference signal size increases with increasing optokinetic stimulus potential, is discussed. It appears to explain many visual illusions, such as the movement aftereffect and center-surround induced motion, and it may bridge the gap between direct Gibsonian and indirect inferential theories of motion perception.     

Illusory motion induced by blurred red-blue edges

Visual patterns consisting of a red-and-blue region with a blurry edge yield illusory motion. Eye movements over a static pattern induced illusory motion of the edge in the direction opposite to the eye movement. The illusion also takes place for patterns in motion without eye movement. The illusion suggests the effect of colour combination on the spatial perception of a blurry edge.     

Effects of visual-field inversions on the reverse-perspective illusion

The 'reverse-perspective' illusion entails the apparent motion of a stationary scene painted in relief and containing misleading depth cues. We have found that, using prism goggles to induce horizontal or vertical visual-field reversals, the illusory motion is greatly reduced or eliminated in the direction for which the goggles reverse the visual field. We argue that the illusion is a consequence of the observer's inability to reconcile changes in visual information due to body movement with implicit knowledge concerning anticipated changes. As such, the reverse-perspective illusion may prove to be useful in the study of the integration of linear perspective and motion parallax information.     

A comparison of auditory and visual apparent motion presented individually and with crossmodal moving distractors

Unimodal auditory and visual apparent motion (AM) and bimodal audiovisual AM were investigated to determine the effects of crossmodal integration on motion perception and direction-of-motion discrimination in each modality. To determine the optimal stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) ranges for motion perception and direction discrimination, we initially measured unimodal visual and auditory AMs using one of four durations (50, 100, 200, or 400 ms) and ten SOAs (40-450 ms). In the bimodal conditions, auditory and visual AM were measured in the presence of temporally synchronous, spatially displaced distractors that were either congruent (moving in the same direction) or conflicting (moving in the opposite direction) with respect to target motion. Participants reported whether continuous motion was perceived and its direction. With unimodal auditory and visual AM, motion perception was affected differently by stimulus duration and SOA in the two modalities, while the opposite was observed for direction of motion. In the bimodal audiovisual AM condition, discriminating the direction of motion was affected only in the case of an auditory target. The perceived direction of auditory but not visual AM was reduced to chance levels when the crossmodal distractor direction was conflicting. Conversely, motion perception was unaffected by the distractor direction and, in some cases, the mere presence of a distractor facilitated movement perception.     

Induced motion of a fixated target: influence of voluntary eye deviation.

Induced motion (IM) was observed in a fixated target in the direction opposite to the real motion of a moving background. Relative to a fixation target located straight ahead, IM decreased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees in the same direction as background motion and increased when fixation was deviated 10 degrees opposite background motion. These results are consistent with a "nystagmus-suppression" hypothesis for subjective motion of fixated targets: the magnitude of illusory motion is correlated with the amount of voluntary efference required to oppose involuntary eye movements that would occur in the absence of fixation. In addition to the form of IM studied, this explanation applies to autokinesis, apparent concomitant motion, and the oculogyral illusion. Accounts of IM that stress visual capture of vection, afferent mechanisms, egocenter deviations, or phenomenological principles, although they may explain some forms of IM, do not account for the present results.     

Visual mislocalisation induced by translational and radial background motion

Three experiments were conducted to explore how translational and radial background motion affected visual localisation. In experiment 1, subjects were asked to indicate the apparent position of a small spot of light flashing against a background of vertical stripes, at a varying point in time before and after rapid translational motion of the background to the left or right. When the spot was flashed before the background motion, subjects mislocalised it toward the central fixation point. An interesting finding was that this mislocalisation occurred in most cases when the background moved in the direction opposite to the visual half-field in which the spot was flashed. That is to say, a spot flashed on the right side of the fixation point was mislocalised when its background moved to the left, and not when it moved to the right; and the converse was also true. In experiment 2, concentric circles were used as the background, and moved in a contracting or expanding direction. The results indicated that mislocalisation toward the central fixation point occurred when a spot was flashed before contracting motion of the background. The same mislocalisation was observed for the spot flashed in the lower visual field, but not when it was flashed in the upper visual field (experiment 3). It is concluded that the mislocalisation is a visual illusion induced by a transient background motion toward the central fixation point.     

The effect of hand position and pattern motion on temporal order judgments

Subjects made temporal order judgments (TOJs) of tactile stimuli presented to the fingerpads. The subjects judged which one of two locations had been stimulated first. The tactile stimuli were patterns that simulated movement across the fingerpads. Although irrelevant to the task, the direction of movement of the patterns biased the TOJs. If the pattern at one location moved in the direction of the second location, the subjects tended to judge the first location as leading the second location. If the pattern moved in the opposite direction, that location was judged as trailing. In a series of experiments, the effect of the spatial position of the hands and fingers on TOJs and the perception of the direction of pattern movement were examined. Changing the position of the hands so that the patterns no longer moved directly toward each other reduced or eliminated the effect of motion on TOJs. In a variation of Aristotle's illusion, the moving patterns were presented to crossed and uncrossed fingers. The results indicated that, contrary to Aristotle's illusion, the subjects processed the moving patterns relative to an environmental framework, rather than to the local direction of motion on the fingerpads. Presenting the patterns to crossed hands produced results similar to those obtained with crossed fingers: The subjects processed the patterns according to an environmental framework.     

Motion versus position in the perception of head-centred movement

Abstract. Observers can recover motion with respect to the head during an eye movement by comparing signals encoding retinal motion and the velocity of pursuit. Evidently there is a mismatch between these signals because perceived head-centred motion is not always veridical. One example is the Filehne illusion, in which a stationary object appears to move in the opposite direction to pursuit. Like the motion aftereffect, the phenomenal experience of the Filehne illusion is one in which the stimulus moves but does not seem to go anywhere. This raises problems when measuring the illusion by motion nulling because the more traditional technique confounds perceived motion with changes in perceived position. We devised a new nulling technique using global-motion stimuli that degraded familiar position cues but preserved cues to motion. Stimuli consisted of random-dot patterns comprising signal and noise dots that moved at the same retinal 'base' speed. Noise moved in random directions. In an eye-stationary speed-matching experiment we found noise slowed perceived retinal speed as 'coherence strength' (ie percentage of signal) was reduced. The effect occurred over the two-octave range of base speeds studied and well above direction threshold. When the same stimuli were combined with pursuit, observers were able to null the Filehne illusion by adjusting coherence. A power law relating coherence to retinal base speed fit the data well with a negative exponent. Eye-movement recordings showed that pursuit was quite accurate. We then tested the hypothesis that the stimuli found at the null-points appeared to move at the same retinal speed. Two observers supported the hypothesis, a third partially, and a fourth showed a small linear trend. In addition, the retinal speed found by the traditional Filehne technique was similar to the matches obtained with the global-motion stimuli. The results provide support for the idea that speed is the critical cue in head-centred motion perception.     

Induced motion of a fixated target: Influence of voluntary eye deviation

Induced motion (IM) was observed in a fixated target in the direction opposite to the real motion of a moving background. Relative to a fixation target located straight ahead, IM decreased when fixation was deviated 10° in the same direction as background motion and increased when fixation was deviated 10° opposite background motion. These results are consistent with a “nystagmus-suppression” hypothesis for subjective motion of fixated targets: the magnitude of illusory motion is correlated with the amount of voluntary efference required to oppose involuntary eye movements that would occur in the absence of fixation. In addition to the form of IM studied, this explanation applies to autokinesis, apparent concomitant motion, and the oculogyral illusion. Accounts of IM that stress visual capture of vection, afferent mechanisms, egocenter deviations, or phenomenological principles, although they may explain some forms of IM, do not account for the present results.     

I thought you were looking at me: direction-specific aftereffects in gaze perception

Gaze direction is an important social signal in humans and other primates. In this study, we used an adaptation paradigm to investigate the functional organization of gaze perception in humans. Adaptation to consistent leftward or rightward gaze produced a powerful illusion that virtually eliminated observers' perception of gaze in the adapted direction; gaze to that side was seen as pointing straight ahead, though perception of gaze to the opposite side was unimpaired. This striking dissociation held even when retinotopic mapping between adaptation and test stimuli was disrupted by changes in size or head orientation, suggesting that our findings do not reflect adaptation to low-level visual properties. Moreover, adaptation to averted gaze did not affect judgments of line bisection, illustrating that our findings do not reflect a general spatial bias. Our findings provide evidence that humans have distinct populations of neurons that are selectively responsive to particular directions of seen gaze.     

Adaptation to altered visual—vestibular feedback: Mechanisms of maintenance and recovery

Adaptation of perceived movement during head motion (apparent concomitant motion, ACM) and the subsequent elimination of adaptation were studied in two experiments. During the adaptation phase of both experiments, subjects performed voluntary 1-Hz head oscillations for 6 min while fixating a stimulus moving either in the same (with) direction as or the opposite (against) direction of head movements. In Experiment 1, ACM adaptation was measured following either a 1- or a 4-min delay after the adaptation phase. Results indicated some loss of adaptation during the additional 3-min delay, demonstrating a tendency of the system linking head and image to return to its preadaptation state following removal of an adaptation stimulus. In Experiment 2, subjects viewed a stimulus after adaptation that appeared to move minimally in the same manner as the adaptation stimulus during 3 min of head oscillations. No loss of adaptation was measured in these subjects between the beginning and the end of the 3-min interval. In another condition, subjects viewed a stimulus that appeared to move alternately in the same direction as and in the opposite direction of the adaptation stimulus during a similar 3-min interval following adaptation. ACM adaptation was substantially reduced during this 3-min interval. These results implicate two mechanisms that operate to either maintain or eliminate ACM adaptation. One is passive and operates in the absence of visual feedback to eliminate the short-term adapted state, and the other responds to postadaptation visual feedback.     

The surface and deep structure of the waterfall illusion

The surface structure of the waterfall illusion or motion aftereffect (MAE) is its phenomenal visibility. Its deep structure will be examined in the context of a model of space and motion perception. The MAE can be observed following protracted observation of a pattern that is translating, rotating, or expanding/contracting, a static pattern appears to move in the opposite direction. The phenomenon has long been known, and it continues to present novel properties. One of the novel features of MAEs is that they can provide an ideal visual assay for distinguishing local from global processes. Motion during adaptation can be induced in a static central grating by moving surround gratings; the MAE is observed in the static central grating but not in static surrounds. The adaptation phase is local and the test phase is global. That is, localised adaptation can be expressed in different ways depending on the structure of the test display. These aspects of MAEs can be exploited to determine a variety of local/global interactions. Six experiments on MAEs are reported. The results indicated that relational motion is required to induce an MAE; the region adapted extends beyond that stimulated; storage can be complete when the MAE is not seen during the storage period; interocular transfer (IOT) is around 30% of monocular MAEs with phase alternation; large field spiral patterns yield MAEs with characteristic monocular and binocular interactions.