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.     

Spatial offset of test field elements from surround elements affects the strength of motion aftereffects

Static movement aftereffects (MAEs) were measured after adaptation to vertical square-wave luminance gratings drifting horizontally within a central window in a surrounding stationary vertical grating. The relationship between the stationary test grating and the surround was manipulated by varying the alignment of the stationary stripes in the window and those in the surround, and the type of outline separating the window and the surround [no outline, black outline (invisible on black stripes), and red outline (visible throughout its length)]. Offsetting the stripes in the window significantly increased both the duration and ratings of the strength of MAEs. Manipulating the outline had no significant effect on either measure of MAE strength. In a second experiment, in which the stationary test fields alone were presented, participants judged how segregated the test field appeared from its surround. In contrast to the MAE measures, outline as well as offset contributed to judged segregation. In a third experiment, in which test-stripe offset was systematically manipulated, segregation ratings rose with offset. However, MAE strength was greater at medium than at either small or large (180 degrees phase shift) offsets. The effects of these manipulations on the MAE are interpreted in terms of a spatial mechanism which integrates motion signals along collinear contours of the test field and surround, and so causes a reduction of motion contrast at the edges of the test field.     

Motion aftereffects and retinal motion

Two experiments are described in which it was investigated whether the adaptation on which motion aftereffects (MAEs) are based is a response to retinal image motion alone or to the motion signal derived from the process which combines the image motion signal with information about eye movement (corollary discharge). In both experiments observers either fixated a stationary point or tracked a vertically moving point while a pattern (in experiment 1, a grating; in experiment 2, a random-dot pattern) drifted horizontally across the field. In the tracking condition the adapting retinal motion was oblique. In the fixation condition it was horizontal. In every case in both conditions the MAE was horizontal, in the direction opposite to that of pattern motion. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the adaptation is a response to the motion signal derived from the comparison of eye and image motion rather than to retinal motion per se. An alternative explanation is discussed.     

Effects of attentional modulation of a stationary surround in adaptation to motion

The effect of varying the spatial relationships between an adapt/test grating and a stationary surrounding reference grating, and their interaction with diversion of attention during adaptation, were investigated in two experiments on the movement aftereffect (MAE). In experiment 1, MAEs were found to increase as the separation between the surrounding grating and the adapt/test grating decreased, but not with the area of the adapt/test grating. Although diversion during adaptation (repeating changing digits at the fixation point) reduced MAE durations, its effects did not interact with any of the stimulus variables. In experiment 2, MAE durations increased as the outer dimensions of the reference grating were increased, and this effect did interact with diversion, so that the effects of diversion were smaller when the surround grating was larger. This suggests that diversion may be affecting the inputs to an opponent process in motion adaptation, with a smaller effect on the surrounds than on the centres of antagonistic motion-contrast detectors with large receptive fields. A third experiment showed that, although repeating the word 'zero' during adaptation reduced MAEs, this reduction was smaller than that from naming a changing sequence of digits (and not significantly different from that from simply observing the changing digits), suggesting that MAE reductions are not produced only, if at all, by putative movements of the head and eyes caused by speaking.     

Psychophysical evidence for an extrastriate contribution to a pattern-selective motion aftereffect

A stationary vertical test grating appears to drift to the left after adaptation to an inducing grating drifting to the right, this being known as the motion aftereffect (MAE). Pattern-specific motion aftereffects (PSMAEs) induced by superimposed pairs of gratings in which the component gratings drift up and down but the observer sees a single coherent plaid drifting to the right have been investigated. Two experiments are reported in which it is demonstrated that the PSMAE is tuned more to the motion of the pattern than to the orientation and direction of motion of the component gratings. However, when subjects adapt to the component gratings in alternation, aftereffect magnitude is dependent upon the individual grating orientations and motion directions. These results can be interpreted in terms of extrastriate contributions to the PSMAE, possibly arising from the middle temporal area, where some cells, unlike those in striate cortex (V1), are tuned to pattern motion rather than to component motion.     

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.     

Binocular rivalry with moving patterns

Binocular rivalry between a horizontal and a vertical grating was examined in six experiments. The gratings could be presented in a static form or dynamically so that either one or both gratings moved. The motion consisted of a symmetrical transformation of the gratings about their centers, so that the lines moved outwards or inwards. During rivalry, a moving pattern was visible for about 50% longer than an equivalently oriented static pattern (Experiments 1, 2, and 4). When both gratings were in motion (Experiments 3 and 5), the course of rivalry was similar to that found for two static gratings. The duration of dominance of the moving grating was influenced by its velocity (Experiment 6). The results are interpreted in terms of the stimulus strengths of the static and dynamic patterns.     

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 interaction of perceived distance with the perceived direction of visual motion during movements of the eyes and the head.

A horizontally moving target was followed by rotation of the eyes alone or by a lateral movement of the head. These movements resulted in the retinal displacement of a vertically moving target from its perceived path, the amplitude of which was determined by the phase and amplitude of the object motion and of the eye or head movements. In two experiments, we tested the prediction from our model of spatial motion (Swanston, Wade, & Day, 1987) that perceived distance interacts with compensation for head movements, but not with compensation for eye movements with respect to a stationary head. In both experiments, when the vertically moving target was seen at a distance different from its physical distance, its perceived path was displaced relative to that seen when there was no error in perceived distance, or when it was pursued by eye movements alone. In a third experiment, simultaneous measurements of eye and head position during lateral head movements showed that errors in fixation were not sufficient to require modification of the retinal paths determined by the geometry of the observation conditions in Experiments 1 and 2.     

The interaction of perceived distance with the perceived direction of visual motion during movements of the eyes and the head

A horizontally moving target was followed by rotation of the eyes alone or by a lateral movement of the head. These movements resulted in the retinal displacement of a vertically moving target from its perceived path, the amplitude of which was determined by the phase and amplitude of the object motion and of the eye or head movements. In two experiments, we tested the prediction from our model of spatial motion (Swanston, Wade, & Day, 1987) that perceived distance interacts with compensation for head movements, but not with compensation-for eye movements with respect to a stationary head. In both experiments, when the vertically moving target was seen at a distance different from its physical distance, its perceived path was displaced relative to that seen when there was no error in pereived distance, or when it was pursued by eye movements alone. In a third experiment, simultaneous measurements of eye and head position during lateral head movements showed that errors in fixation were not sufficient to require modification of the retinal paths determined by the geometry of the observation conditions in Experiments 1 and 2.     

Velocity dependence of the interocular transfer of dynamic motion aftereffects

It is well established that motion aftereffects (MAEs) can show interocular transfer (IOT); that is, motion adaptation in one eye can give a MAE in the other eye. Different quantification methods and different test stimuli have been shown to give different IOT magnitudes, varying from no to almost full IOT. In this study, we examine to what extent IOT of the dynamic MAE (dMAE), that is the MAE seen with a dynamic noise test pattern, varies with velocity of the adaptation stimulus. We measured strength of dMAE by a nulling method. The aftereffect induced by adaptation to a moving random-pixel array was compensated (nulled), during a brief dynamic test period, by the same kind of motion stimulus of variable luminance signal-to-noise ratio (LSNR). The LSNR nulling value was determined in a Quest-staircase procedure. We found that velocity has a strong effect on the magnitude of IOT for the dMAE. For increasing speeds from 1.5 deg s(-1) to 24 deg s(-1) average IOT values increased about linearly from 18% to 63% or from 32% to 83%, depending on IOT definition. The finding that dMAEs transfer to an increasing extent as speed increases, suggests that binocular cells play a more dominant role at higher speeds.     

Duration, time constant, and decay of the linear motion aftereffect as a function of inspection duration

Subjects rated the strength of the motion aftereffect (MAE) produced by the upward motion of a horizontal grating in two experiments. Inspection periods ranged from 30 to 900 sec in Experiment 1 and from 20 to 120 sec in Experiment 2. A minimum of 22 h elapsed between trials. The decay time constant increased as the square root of the inspection duration for values between 1 min and 15 min of inspection. The ratings suggested that the MAEs consisted of three phases: an initial maximum-strength phase, a decay phase, and a tail. The duration of all three phases increased and the decay rate decreased with increasing inspection duration over the entire range. The results indicate that duration, time constant, and decay rate are not fixed properties of the motion-processing channels in the visual system.     

Tracking without perceiving: a dissociation between eye movements and motion perception

Can people react to objects in their visual field that they do not consciously perceive? We investigated how visual perception and motor action respond to moving objects whose visibility is reduced, and we found a dissociation between motion processing for perception and for action. We compared motion perception and eye movements evoked by two orthogonally drifting gratings, each presented separately to a different eye. The strength of each monocular grating was manipulated by inducing adaptation to one grating prior to the presentation of both gratings. Reflexive eye movements tracked the vector average of both gratings (pattern motion) even though perceptual responses followed one motion direction exclusively (component motion). Observers almost never perceived pattern motion. This dissociation implies the existence of visual-motion signals that guide eye movements in the absence of a corresponding conscious percept.     

Fourier components of moving gratings

In designing experiments in which the proximal stimulus is a moving grating (including cases in which the distal stimulus is stationary but eye movements play a significant role), one must consider the effects of the motion of the stimulus on its Fourier components in the spatiotemporal frequency domain. Some of these effects are unexpected and counterintuitive. For example, the Fourier components of a moving grating do not include its stationary (or “instantaneous”) spatial frequency. Thus there is no linear filter that can extract a stationary grating from a moving one. Several useful relations are given for analyzing such stimuli.     

Auditory clicks distort perceived velocity but only when the system has to rely on extraretinal signals

Previous work has found that repetitive auditory stimulation (click trains) increases the subjective velocity of subsequently presented moving stimuli. We ask whether the effect of click trains is stronger for retinal velocity signals (produced when the target moves across the retina) or for extraretinal velocity signals (produced during smooth pursuit eye movements, when target motion across the retina is limited). In Experiment 1, participants viewed leftward or rightward moving single dot targets, travelling at speeds from 7.5 to 17.5 deg/s. They estimated velocity at the end of each trial. Prior presentation of auditory click trains increased estimated velocity, but only in the pursuit condition, where estimates were based on extraretinal velocity signals. Experiment 2 generalized this result to vertical motion. Experiment 3 found that the effect of clicks during pursuit disappeared when participants tracked across a visually textured background that provided strong local motion cues. Together these results suggest that auditory click trains selectively affect extraretinal velocity signals. This novel finding suggests that the cross-modal integration required for auditory click trains to influence subjective velocity operates at later stages of processing.     

The orientation anisotropy and orientation constancy: a visual evoked potential study.

Two experiments were conducted on the orientation anisotropy in which averaged visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded from the occipital scalp. The first experiment confirmed the findings of Maffei and Campbell (1970) that obliquely oriented gratings alternated back and forth produced smaller-amplitude VEPs than when the gratings were oriented horizontally or vertically. Since no asymmetry was found in VEPs produced by a Julesz figure presented under identical conditions, it was concluded that direction of displacement could not have been contributing to the effect. In a second experiment head tilt of the subject was manipulated together with grating orientation and the results indicated that the orientation anisotropy is retinally rather than gravitationally referenced. It was concluded that the site of orientation constancy is located either at higher levels of the primary visual system or in the second visual system.     

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.     

VELOCITY PERCEPTION — CENTRALLY OR RETINALLY ORGANISED?

C ohen , R. L. Velocity perception—centrally or retinally organised? Scand. J. Psychol ., 1961, 2, 45–48.—5 subjects were asked to estimate ( a ) the relative and (6) the absolute velocities of two spots moving in a simple harmonic motion, 180° out of phase under two experimental conditions: (1) both spots projected on to bothretinas, and (2) one spot projected on to one retina and the second on to the other. Theresults were precisely the same under both conditions. This was taken as indicating that(a) the organisation of velocity perception is central rather than retinal, and ( b ) the effect of interference caused by one spot when trying to estimate the velocity of the other (the signal) is not lessened when the interference is fed into the eye other than the one receiving the signal spot.     

Measuring and predicting the effects of alcohol consumption on contrast sensitivity for stationary and moving gratings

Contrast sensitivity was measured for 12 healthy young males while sober, after ingestion of an alcohol placebo, and after ingestion of alcohol (95% grain alcohol; mean estimated blood alcohol level = .088%). Observations were made for both stationary gratings and gratings that traveled through a circular path and required pursuit eye movements. The significant alcohol-related reduction in contrast sensitivity was 2.6 times greater for moving (.29-log-unit reduction) than for stationary gratings (.11-log-unit reduction). The loss in contrast sensitivity for the moving gratings of high spatial frequency (12 cpd) was particularly severe (.37 log unit). Estimated blood alcohol level was correlated with the loss in contrast sensitivity for moving gratings (r = .61), but not with the loss for stationary gratings. Estimated blood alcohol level was strongly correlated with the difference between the loss in contrast sensitivity to moving and stationary gratings (r = .75). These results are consistent with reports that alcohol consumption degrades the ability to make pursuit eye movements. Subjects’ perceived intoxication level was not a reliable predictor of any index of visual performance.     

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.