The spatial spread of attentional modulation of the motion aftereffect

The spatial spread of attentional modulation of selective adaptation was investigated in four experiments in which the duration of the movement aftereffect (MAE) was measured with and without processing of intermittently changing digits at the fixation point. In the first experiment, the effects of diverting attention on MAE duration were found to reduce as the distance between the fixation digits and the inner edge of the surrounding adapt/test grating was increased. A second experiment suggested that eye movements were unlikely to underlie the attentional effects. In experiment 3, the attentional effect stayed constant as the outer diameter of the adapt/test gratings was increased. In experiment 4 (as in experiment 1) the modulatory effects of attention were larger the closer the adapt/test gratings were to the locus of attention, when the area of the grating was held constant but its eccentricity varied. In experiments 1 and 4, an intermittently changing fixation digit was found to reduce MAE durations more than an unchanging digit, even when subjects were not required to process it, suggesting that exogenous as well as endogenous attentional processes modulate early motion processing.     

The motion aftereffect

The motion aftereffect is a powerful illusion of motion in the visual image caused by prior exposure to motion in the opposite direction. For example, when one looks at the rocks beside a waterfall they may appear to drift upwards after one has viewed the flowing water for a short period-perhaps 60 seconds. The illusion almost certainly originates in the visual cortex, and arises from selective adaptation in cells tuned to respond to movement direction. Cells responding to the movement of the water suffer a reduction in responsiveness, so that during competitive interactions between detector outputs, false motion signals arise. The result is the appearance of motion in the opposite direction when one later gazes at the rocks. The adaptation is not confined to just one population of cells, but probably occurs at several cortical sites, reflecting the multiple levels of processing involved in visual motion analysis. The effect is unlikely to be caused by neural fatigue; more likely, the MAE and similar adaptation effects provide a form of error-correction or coding optimization, or both.     

Visual motion influences the contingent auditory motion aftereffect

In this study, we show that the contingent auditory motion aftereffect is strongly influenced by visual motion information. During an induction phase, participants listened to rightward-moving sounds with falling pitch alternated with leftward-moving sounds with rising pitch (or vice versa). Auditory aftereffects (i.e., a shift in the psychometric function for unimodal auditory motion perception) were bigger when a visual stimulus moved in the same direction as the sound than when no visual stimulus was presented. When the visual stimulus moved in the opposite direction, aftereffects were reversed and thus became contingent upon visual motion. When visual motion was combined with a stationary sound, no aftereffect was observed. These findings indicate that there are strong perceptual links between the visual and auditory motion-processing systems.     

Discontinuity of seen motion reduces the visual motion aftereffect

Would a motion-picture film of a rotating spiral induce a spiral aftereffect? This question was studied in two experiments in which Ss viewed an animated film of circles collapsing to a point. The rate of apparent motion of the collapsing circles and the discontinuity of motion—the length of jump between successively projected circles—were varied independently. A visual aftereffect like the spiral aftereffect was created. The aftereffect increased in strength and duration with the rate of motion, but at all rates of motion it declined as discontinuity of motion increased. The results are taken as evidence that motion aftereffects are caused by selective fatigue of small, directionally sensitive motion-receptive fields.     

The motion aftereffect reloaded

The motion aftereffect is a robust illusion of visual motion resulting from exposure to a moving pattern. There is a widely accepted explanation of it in terms of changes in the response of cortical direction-selective neurons. Research has distinguished several variants of the effect. Converging recent evidence from different experimental techniques (psychophysics, single-unit recording, brain imaging, transcranial magnetic stimulation, visual evoked potentials and magnetoencephalography) reveals that adaptation is not confined to one or even two cortical areas, but occurs at multiple levels of processing involved in visual motion analysis. A tentative motion-processing framework is described, based on motion aftereffect research. Recent ideas on the function of adaptation see it as a form of gain control that maximises the efficiency of information transmission at multiple levels of the visual pathway.     

Brightness selectivity in the motion aftereffect

Eighteen Ss were required to track the apparent motion of a stationary grating viewed after prolonged inspection of a moving grating. Measures were obtained with the inspection and test gratings identical in contrast but different in space-average luminance, or with luminance held constant and contrast varied. The aftereffect was reduced as the gratings differed in space-average luminance, but contrast exerted less uniform influence as a variable. Brightness-selectivity in the motion aftereffect is interpreted within the selective adaptation model of aftereffects as evidence that some detectors in human vision are conjointly tuned to space-average luminance and image motion.     

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.     

A motion aftereffect for long-range troboscopic apparent motion

The existence of a directional motion aftereffect (MAE) for long-range (LR) stroboscopic apparent motion (SAM) was examined with the use of a directionally ambiguous test stimulus. The spatial and temporal parameters were such that the LR, rather than the short-range, mechanism was likely to be implicated. MAEs were found for SAM, which were in the same direction, but somewhat weaker than those for a comparable stimulus in real motion. The MAEs for SAM were present only when good apparent motion was perceived, and could be shown also when only the unstimulated area between the two stroboscopic flashes was tested. The LR mechanism was further implicated, since the MAEs were also obtained under dichoptic adaptation conditions. It is concluded that the LR-motion mechanism does show a usual MAE under proper testing conditions.     

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.     

Visual motion aftereffect induced by simulated rectilinear motion

Visual motion aftereffect characteristics comparable to those associated with rotary and translatory movement of a test field are demonstrated for simulated rectilinear motion of the observer. The intensity and time duration of the phenomenon are shown to be positively correlated. The implications of this for individual observers are considered. The results of this experiment are correlated with those for adaptation and for recovery from adaptation that were obtained from the same group of observers. The findings are shown to support the hypothesis that visual motion affereffect is a manifestation of the adaptation recovery function of velocity sensitive mechanisms.     

Effect of luminance contrast on the motion aftereffect

The effects of luminance contrast and spatial frequency on the motion aftereffect were investigated. The point of subjective equality for velocity was measured as an index of the motion aftereffect. The largest effect was observed when a low contrast grating (5%) was presented as a test stimulus after adaptation to a high contrast grating (100%) in the low spatial frequency condition (0.8 cycle deg.-1). On the whole, the effect increased with increasing adapting contrast and with decreasing test contrast or spatial frequency. Small effects were observed at high test contrasts. These results were inconsistent with those of Keck, Palella, and Pantle in 1976. Analysis showed that there was no saturation on velocity of the motion aftereffect above 5% of the contrast although Keck, et al. (1976) found that the incremental increases of the effect above 3% adapting contrast were small.     

Attentional modulation of a figural aftereffect.

Evidence is reported that indicates that adaptation of the Schroder staircase is affected by attention. In previous work it has been shown that if subjects adapt to an unambiguous staircase, responses to an ambiguous test figure are biased towards the opposing perspective. In the current work, subjects adapted to superimposed upright and inverted Schroder staircases. Both staircases were centered on a common fixation point and were of different sizes and colors. Attention to each staircase was controlled by asking subjects to detect color changes in the line segments that defined one or the other staircase. Responses to an ambiguous test figure depended on which of the adapting staircases was attended.     

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.     

Contextual modulation of memory consolidation

We investigate olfactory memory consolidation in honeybees. Three experiments are reported that include 1024 animals in 28 experimental groups. After one pairing of odorant and sucrose reward, retention is typically nonmonotonic with a minimum 3 min after conditioning. This corresponds to the “Kamin effect” in vertebrates; the postminimum rise in retention is usually interpreted as reflecting memory consolidation. First, we test for the generality of this effect across four different odorants. The postminimum rise in retention was reproducibly observed for 1-hexanol but not for 1-octanol, limonene, or geraniol. Second, we investigate whether previous learning about the training context modulates subsequent memory consolidation. On the day before training, a reward was applied either upon placement into the future training context for 1 min, halfway during exposure or just before removal from the context. In the latter group, the 3-min minimum in retention was eliminated; thus, in that group, forward pairings of context and reward (i.e., context exposure begins before reward is applied) lead to an associative context memory that can modulate subsequent olfactory memory consolidation. Third, we found no evidence for a modulation of olfactory memory consolidation by pre-exposure to the odorant.     

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.