Induced rotational motion with nonabutting inducing and induced stimuli: implications regarding two forms of induced motion

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a static stimulus in the opposite direction to a moving stimulus. Two types of induced motion have been distinguished: (a) when the moving stimulus is distant from the static stimulus and undergoes overall displacement, and (b) when the moving stimulus is pattern viewed within fixed boundaries that abut the static stimulus. Explanations of the 1st type of induced motion refer to mediating phenomena, such as vection, whereas the 2nd type is attributed to local processing by motion-sensitive neurons. The present research was directed to a display that elicited induced rotational motion with the characteristics of both types of induced motion: the moving stimulus lay within fixed boundaries, but the inducing and induced stimuli were distant from each other. The author investigated the properties that distinguished the two types of induced motion. In 3 experiments, induced motion persisted indefinitely, interocular transfer of the aftereffect of induced motion was limited to about 20%, and the time-course of the aftereffect of induced motion could not be attributed to vection. Those results were consistent with fixed-boundary induced motion. However, they could not be explained by local processing. Instead, the results might reflect the detection of object motion within a complex flow-field that resulted from the observer's motion.     

Induced motion: isolation and dissociation of egocentric and vection-entrained components.

Induced motion (IM) is illusory motion of a stationary test target opposite to the direction of the real motion of the inducing stimulus. We define egocentric IM as an apparent motion of the test target relative to the observer, and vection-entrained IM as an apparent motion of a stationary object along with an apparent motion of the self (vection) induced by the same stimulus. These two forms of IM are often confounded, and tests for distinguishing between them have not been devised. We have devised such tests. Our test for egocentric IM relies on evidence that this form of IM is due mainly to a misregistration of eye movements when optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) is inhibited, and on evidence that OKN is evoked only by stimuli in the plane of convergence. Our test for vection-entrained IM relies on evidence that vection is evoked only by the more distant of two superimposed inducing stimuli. Thus we found egocentric IM to be induced without vection or vection-entrained IM when subjects converged on a foreground moving display with a stationary display in the background, and vection-entrained IM to be induced without egocentric IM when subjects converged on a stationary-foreground display with a moving display in the background. The two types of IM were evoked in opposite directions at the same time when subjects converged on a foreground moving display while a background display moved in the opposite direction. The two forms of IM showed no signs of interaction, and we conclude that they rely on independent motion mechanisms that operate within distinct frames of reference. A control experiment suggested that the depth adjacency effect in IM is determined by the depth adjacency of the inducing stimulus to convergence, not just to the test target.     

Circular vection as a function of the relative sizes, distances, and positions of two competing visual displays

In studies where it is reported that illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is induced more by peripheral displays than by central displays, eccentricity may have been confounded with perceived relative distance and area. Experiments are reported in which the direction and magnitude of vection induced by a central display in the presence of a surround display were measured. The displays varied in relative distance and area and were presented in isolation, with one moving and one stationary display, or with both moving in opposite directions. A more distant display had more influence over vection than a near display. A central display induced vection if seen in isolation or through a 'window' in a stationary surrounding display. Motion of a more distant central display weakened vection induced by a nearer surrounding display moving the other way. When the two displays had the same area their effects almost cancelled. A moving central display nearer than a textured stationary surround produced vection in the same direction as the moving stimulus. This phenomenon is termed 'contrast-motion vecton' because it is probably due to illusory motion of the surround induced by motion of the centre. Unequivocal statements about the dominance of an eccentric display over a central display cannot be made without considering the relative distances and sizes of the displays and the motion contrast between them.     

Motion aftereffect with subjective contours

Stationary lines appear to move from left to right following exposure to lines moving from right to left. This aftereffect, which normally is generated by exposure to moving edges that are defined in terms of local luminance discontinuity, can also be induced by adaptation to displays containing subjective contours. In both cases, stereodeficient observers demonstrated reduced interocular transfer of the aftereffect relative to stereonormal observers. Since interocular transfer of the motion aftereffect entails binocular function within the visual system, these results suggest that the perception of subjective contours depends on excitation of neural feature detectors rather than simply on cognitive inference.     

Effects of stimulus eccentricity on vection reevaluated with a binocularly defined depth1

Abstract: The effects of stimulus eccentricity (central or peripheral) on vection (visually induced self‐motion perception) were investigated using a stimulus combination consisting of a static foreground and a moving background, the depths of which were defined by binocular disparity. By using these stimulus settings, the effect of stimulus eccentricity can be assessed without any artifacts in the perceived depth of the stimulus, which would covary with the stimulus eccentricity. The results of this psychophysical experiment indicated that stimulus eccentricity cannot affect the strength of vection, and that both the central and peripheral stimuli can induce self‐motion perception with equal magnitudes if the stimulus sizes are equalized. The present investigation, which used a controlled stimulus depth condition, clearly negated the idea of the peripheral dominance of vection, which has been accepted for a long time.     

Type of motion in inverted self-motion perception induced by a foreground stimulus

Slowly moving foreground induces an illusory self-motion perception in the same direction as its motion direction (inverted vection). In this study, the effects of motion type of the foreground stimulus on inverted vection were investigated using a sample of 3 men and 1 woman. As indices of perceived strength of the inverted vection, duration and estimated magnitude were measured. Analysis of the psychophysical experiment indicated that a translating foreground induced inverted linear vection in the same direction as the stimulus motion. However, a rotating foreground did not induce an inverted roll vection. Statistical analyses indicate that there is a significant difference between two foreground motion conditions (Duration: t3=14.54, p <.01; Estimation: t3=16.92, p<.01). This result supports the hypothesis that eye-movement information is responsible for the occurrence of inverted vection.     

Adaptation to spiral motion in crowding condition

When a single, moving stimulus is presented in the peripheral visual field, its direction of motion can be easily distinguished, but when the same stimulus is flanked by other similar moving stimuli, observers are unable to report its direction of motion. In this condition, known as 'crowding', specific features of visual stimuli do not access conscious perception. The aim of this study was to investigate whether adaptation to spiral motion is preserved in crowding conditions. Logarithmic spirals were used as adapting stimuli. A rotating spiral stimulus (target spiral) was presented, flanked by spirals of the same type, and observers were adapted to its motion. The observers' task was to report the rotational direction of a directionally ambiguous motion (test stimulus) presented afterwards. The directionally ambiguous motion consisted of a pair of spirals flickering in counterphase, which were mirror images of the target spiral. Although observers were not aware of the rotational direction of the target and identified it at chance levels, the direction of rotation reported by the observers during the test phase (motion aftereffect) was contrarotational to the direction of the adapting spiral. Since all contours of the adapting and test stimuli were 90 degrees apart, local motion detectors tuned to the directions of the mirror-image spiral should fail to respond, and therefore not adapt to the adapting spiral. Thus, any motion aftereffect observed should be attributed to adaptation of global motion detectors (ie rotation detectors). Hence, activation of rotation-selective cells is not necessarily correlated with conscious perception.     

Motion aftereffect of combined first-order and second-order motion

When, after prolonged viewing of a moving stimulus, a stationary (test) pattern is presented to an observer, this results in an illusory movement in the direction opposite to the adapting motion. Typically, this motion aftereffect (MAE) does not occur after adaptation to a second-order motion stimulus (i.e. an equiluminous stimulus where the movement is defined by a contrast or texture border, not by a luminance border). However, a MAE of second-order motion is perceived when, instead of a static test pattern, a dynamic test pattern is used. Here, we investigate whether a second-order motion stimulus does affect the MAE on a static test pattern (sMAE), when second-order motion is presented in combination with first-order motion during adaptation. The results show that this is indeed the case. Although the second-order motion stimulus is too weak to produce a convincing sMAE on its own, its influence on the sMAE is of equal strength to that of the first-order motion component, when they are adapted to simultaneously. The results suggest that the perceptual appearance of the sMAE originates from the site where first-order and second-order motion are integrated.     

Motion direction distribution as a determinant of circular vection

Visually induced self-translation is called linear vection, while visually induced self-rotation is called circular vection. Impressions of circular vection and linear vection were measured using flow patterns presented on a flat screen. Subjects reported strong circular vection when the flow simulated a projected pattern of a rotating cylinder, which had gradients in speed and direction of moving elements on the screen. When speed gradients in a horizontal dimension were removed while not changing the direction distribution on the screen, strong circular vection was still reported. On the other hand, when the motion direction of all elements was the same (horizontal), having speed gradients, the circular vection was weak. The impression of linear vection showed the opposite trend. This result indicates not a speed distribution pattern but one of a two-dimensional direction on the retina determines the type of vection.     

Motion over the retina and the motion aftereffect.

The motion aftereffect (MAE) was measured with retinally moving vertical gratings positioned above and below (flanking) a retinally stationary central grating (experiments 1 and 2). Motion over the retina was produced by leftward motion of the flanking gratings relative to the stationary eyes, and by rightward eye or head movements tracking the moving (but retinally stationary) central grating relative to the stationary (but retinally moving) surround gratings. In experiment 1 the motion occurred within a fixed boundary on the screen, and oppositely directed MAEs were produced in the central and flanking gratings with static fixation; but with eye or head tracking MAEs were reported only in the central grating. In experiment 2 motion over the retina was equated for the static and tracking conditions by moving blocks of grating without any dynamic occlusion and disclosure at the boundaries. Both conditions yielded equivalent leftward MAEs of the central grating in the same direction as the prior flanking motion, ie an MAE was consistently produced in the region that had remained retinally stationary. No MAE was recorded in the flanking gratings, even though they moved over the retina during adaptation. When just two gratings were presented, MAEs were produced in both, but in opposite directions (experiments 3 and 4). It is concluded that the MAE is a consequence of adapting signals for the relative motion between elements of a display.     

Circular vection as a function of foreground-background relationships

It has previously been reported that illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is most effectively induced by the more distant of two moving displays. Experiments are reported in which the relative effectiveness of two superimposed displays in generating circular vection as a function of (i) the separation in depth between them, (ii) their perceived relative distances, and (iii) which display was in the plane of focus was investigated. Circular vection was governed by the motion of the display that was perceived to be the more distant, even when it was actually nearer. However, actual or perceived distance was found to be not the crucial factor in circular vection because even when the distance between the two displays was virtually zero, vection was controlled by the display perceived to be in the background. When the displays were well separated in depth, vection was not affected by whether the near or the far display was in the plane of focus, nor by which display was fixed or pursued by the eyes.     

Vection can be induced without explicit motion signal using backscroll illusion

We demonstrated that vection is induced by a motion stimuli that does not have an explicit, bottom‐up motion component. The stimulus motion used in this experiment was animation movie clips of walking people, with no positional changes within the stimulus field. There were no low‐level motion signals in the direction of gait. The results indicate that strong vection was observed under optimal stimuli conditions, that is, large visual field and multiple walkers. These results suggest that vection can be elicited solely by motion signals extracted at relatively higher levels within the visual system. This is the first report that a pure high‐level motion related to “implied motion” induces vection.     

Motion illusion reveals fixation stability of karate athletes

To investigate the effect of smooth pursuit effort against optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) on the magnitude of induced motion, we measured the magnitude of induced motion and eye movements of karate athletes and novices. In Experiment 1, participants were required to pursue a horizontally moving fixation stimulus against a vertically moving inducing stimulus and to point at the most distorted position of the perceived pathway of the fixation stimulus. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants were presented with the inducing stimulus with or without a static fixation stimulus. Experiments 1 and 2 showed a larger magnitude of induced motion and more stable fixation for the athletes than for the novices. Experiment 3 showed no difference in eye movements between the two groups. These results suggest that the magnitude of induced motion reflects fixation stability that may have been strengthened in karate athletes through their experience and training.     

Depth separation between foreground and background on visually induced perception of self-motion

A uniformly moving visual pattern can induce observer's self-motion perception in the opposite direction (vection), and an additional static stimulus can modulate (facilitate or inhibit) the strength of it. The present study was designed to investigate the effects of stimulus depth order and the depth distances of the visual stimulus on the inhibition and facilitation of vection caused by the additional static stimulus, measuring duration and estimated magnitude of vection as indices of vection strength. Analysis of this psychophysical experiment with four participants indicated that the static foreground presented in front of the moving pattern can facilitate vection, whereas the static background inhibits it (Duration: F1,3= 12.06, p<.05; Estimation: F1,3= 13.87, p<.05). Furthermore, the depth distances from the observer or the depth separation between the foreground and the background did not affect the self-motion perception (F2,6 < 1.0 for duration and estimation).     

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.     

Effect of stationary objects on illusory forward self-motion induced by a looming display

It has previously been shown that when a moving and a stationary display are superimposed, illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is induced only when the moving display appears as the background. Three experiments are reported on the extent to which illusory forward self-motion (forward vection) induced by a looming display is inhibited by a superimposed stationary display as a function of the size and location of the stationary display and of the depth between the stationary and looming displays. Results showed that forward vection was controlled by the display that was perceived as the background, and background stationary displays suppressed forward vection by about the same amount whatever their size and eccentricity. Also, the perception of foreground-background properties of competing displays determined which controlled forward vection, and this control was not tied to specific depth cues. The inhibitory effect of a stationary background on forward vection was, however, weaker than that found with circular vection. This difference makes sense because, for forward body motion, the image of a distant scene is virtually stationary whereas, when the body rotates, it is not.     

Inhibition of vection by red

We investigated the effects of colors on vection induction. Expanding optical flows during one’s forward self-motion were simulated by moving dots. The dots and the background were painted in equiluminant red and green. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that vection was weaker when the background was red than when the background was green. In addition, Experiment 3 showed that vection was weaker when the moving dots were red than when the dots were green. Experiment 4 demonstrated that red dots on a red background induced very weak vection, as compared with green dots on a green background. In Experiments 5 and 6, we showed that the present results could not be explained by a luminance artifact. Furthermore, Experiment 7 showed that a moving red grating induced weaker vection than did a green one. We concluded that a red visual stimulus inhibits vection.     

Motion adaptation shifts apparent position without the motion aftereffect

Adaptation to motion can produce effects on both the perceived motion (the motion aftereffect) and the position (McGraw, Whitaker, Skillen, & Chung, 2002; Nishida & Johnston, 1999; Snowden, 1998; Whitaker, McGraw, & Pearson, 1999) of a subsequently viewed test stimulus. The position shift can be interpreted as a consequence of the motion aftereffect. For example, as the motion within a stationary aperture creates the impression that the aperture is shifted in position (De Valois & De Valois, 1991; Hayes, 2000; Ramachandran & Anstis, 1990), the motion aftereffect may generate a shift in perceived position of the test pattern simply because of the illusory motion it generates on the pattern. However, here we show a different aftereffect of motion adaptation that causes a shift in the apparent position of an object even when the object appears stationary and is located several degrees from the adapted region. This position aftereffect of motion reveals a new form of motion adaptation--one that does not result in a motion aftereffect--and suggests that motion and position signals are processed independently but then interact at a higher stage of processing.     

Critical role of foreground stimuli in perceiving visually induced self-motion (vection)

The effects of a foreground stimulus on vection (illusory perception of self-motion induced by a moving background stimulus) were examined in two experiments. The experiments reveal that the presentation of a foreground pattern with a moving background stimulus may affect vection. The foreground stimulus facilitated vection strength when it remained stationary or moved slowly in the opposite direction to that of the background stimulus. On the other hand, there was a strong inhibition of vection when the foreground stimulus moved slowly with, or quickly against, the background. These results suggest that foreground stimuli, as well as background stimuli, play an important role in perceiving self-motion.     

Stimulus eccentricity and spatial frequency interact to determine circular vection.

While early research suggested that peripheral vision dominates the perception of self-motion, subsequent studies found little or no effect of stimulus eccentricity. In contradiction to these broad notions of 'peripheral dominance' and 'eccentricity independence', the present experiments showed that the spatial frequency of optic flow interacts with its eccentricity to determine circular vection magnitude--central stimulation producing the most compelling vection for high-spatial-frequency stimuli and peripheral stimulation producing the most compelling vection for lower-spatial-frequency stimuli. This interaction appeared to be due, in part at least, to the effect that the higher-spatial-frequency moving pattern had on subjects' ability to organise optic flow into related motion about a single axis. For example, far-peripheral exposure to this high-spatial-frequency pattern caused many subjects to organise the optic flow into independent local regions of motion (a situation which clearly favoured the perception of object motion not self-motion). It is concluded that both high-spatial-frequency and low-spatial-frequency mechanisms are involved in the visual perception of self-motion--with their activities depending on the nature and eccentricity of the motion stimulation.