First-trial adaptation to prism exposure: artifact of visual capture

Terminal target-pointing error on the 1st trial of exposure to optical displacement is usually less than is expected from the optical displacement magnitude. The authors confirmed 1st-trial adaptation in the task of pointing toward optically displaced targets while visual feedback was delayed until movement completion. Measurement of head-shoulder posture while participants (N = 24) viewed the optically displaced field revealed that their shoulders felt turned in the direction opposite to the displacement (visual capture), accounting for all but about 4% to 10% of 1st-trial adaptation. First-trial adaptation was unrelated to realignment aftereffects. First-trial adaptation is largely an artifact of the asymmetry of the structured visual field produced by optical displacement, which induces a felt body rotation, thereby reducing the effective optical displacement.     

Individual differences in the visual component of prism adaptation

The centrality of individual differences in the visual component of perceptual adaptation was examined in a massed-practice-terminal-exposure, prism-viewing paradigm. With positive (adaptive) adjustments in the judgment of the visual straight-ahead, target-pointing aftereffects were found to be equivalent to the sum of the visual and proprioceptive (head-arm) aftereffects. For subjects showing negative visual adjustments to prism exposure, the target-pointing aftereffect was not significantly different from the change in proprioception alone. Implications of these findings for hypotheses concerning the process of perceptual adaptation are discussed.     

Effects of movement duration and visual feedback on visual and proprioceptive components of prism adaptation

While looking through laterally displacing prisms, subjects pointed sagittally 80 times at an objectively straight-ahead target, completing a reciprocal out-and-back pointing movement ever 1, 3, or 6 s. Visual feedback was available early in the pointing movement or only late at the end of the movement. Aftereffect measures of adaptive shift (obtained after every 10 pointing trials) showed adaptive change only in limb position sense (i.e., proprioceptive adaptation) when movement duration was 1 s, regardless of visual feedback condition; but as movement duration increased, adaptive change in the eye position sense (i.e., visual adaptation) increased while proprioceptive adaptation decreased, especially for the late visual feedback condition. Regardless of visual feedback condition, proprioceptive adaptation showed the maximal rate of growth with the 1-s movement duration, whereas visual adaptation showed maximal growth with the 6-s movement duration. These results provide additional support for a model of adaptive spatial mapping in which the direction of strategically flexible coordination (guidance) between eye and limb (and consequently the locus of adaptive spatial mapping) is jointly determined by movement duration and timing of visual feedback. An additional effect of movement duration is to determine the rate of discordant inputs. Maximal growth of adaptation occurs when the input rate matches the response time of the spatial mapping function.     

Understanding prism adaptation: An individual differences approach

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics - Adaptation of college students to wedge prisms was studied in terminal exposure and continuous exposure conditions. The adaptation experience was...     

Effects on prism adaptation of duration and timing of visual feedback during pointing

In two experiments, we investigated the effects of duration of visual feedback of the pointing limb and the time (early to late) in the movement when the limb first becomes visible (timing of visual feedback). Timing, rather than duration of visual feedback, proved to have the greater effect on the relative magnitude of visual and proprioceptive adaptation. Visual adaptation increased smoothly with feedback delay, but corresponding decreases in proprioceptive adaptation underwent an additional sharp change when feedback was delayed until about three-fourths of the way to the terminal limb position. These results are consistent with the idea that visual and proprioceptive adaptation are mediated by exclusive processes. Change in the limb position sense (i.e., proprioceptive adaptation) may be produced by visual guidance of the pointing limb, and view of the limb early in the pointing movement seems to be critical for such visual guidance. The limb may be ballistically released as it nears the terminal position, and, thereafter, any opportunity for visual guidance (i.e., view of the limb) is not effective. On the other hand, change in the eye position sense (i.e., visual adaptation) may be mediated by proprioceptive guidance of the eye; the eyes may track the imaged position of the nonvisible limb. Such proprioceptive guidance seems to be solely a function of the distance moved before the limb becomes visible.     

Generalization of prism adaptation

Prism exposure produces 2 kinds of adaptive response. Recalibration is ordinary strategic remapping of spatially coded movement commands to rapidly reduce performance error. Realignment is the extraordinary process of transforming spatial maps to bring the origins of coordinate systems into correspondence. Realignment occurs when spatial discordance signals noncorrespondence between spatial maps. In Experiment 1, generalization of recalibration aftereffects from prism exposure to postexposure depended upon the similarity of target pointing limb postures. Realignment aftereffects generalized to the spatial maps involved in exposure. In Experiment 2, the 2 kinds of aftereffects were measured for 3 test positions, one of which was the exposure training position. Recalibration aftereffects generalized nonlinearly, while realignment aftereffects generalized linearly, replicating Bedford (1989, 1993a) using a more familiar prism adaptation paradigm. Recalibration and realignment require methods for distinguishing their relative contribution to prism adaptation.     

An examination of relationship between subliminal perception, visual information processing, levels of processing, and hemispheric asymmetries

A sublimiinal letter was exposed to the left or right hemisphere for either 15 or 30 msec. Subjective guesses were more accurate for visuo-spatial positional recognition made to presentations in the right hemisphere whereas verbal recognition was more accurate to presentations in the left hemisphere. The 30-msec. exposure increased the accuracy of the guesses. These findings were discussed in terms of differential triggering mechanisms for levels of hemispheric processing.     

Discriminative conditioning of prism adaptation

Two experiments were used to demonstrate that adaptation to ll-deg prism displacement can be conditioned to the stimuli associated with the goggles in which the prisms are housed. In Experiment 1 it was found that repeated alternation between a series of target-pointing responses while wearing prism goggles and a series of responses without prism goggles led to larger adaptive shift when S was tested with nondisplacing goggles than when tested without goggles. The results of Experiment 2 indicated that the adaptation revealed in the first experiment was primarily proprioceptive, rather than visual. Surprisingly, most Ss reported greater difficulty during the exposure period in overcoming the negative aftereffect than they did the prism-induced error.     

Intermanual transfer of prism adaptation

The authors measured intermanual transfer in participants (N = 48) whose exposed or unexposed right or left hand was tested 1st after participants experienced prismatic displacement. Test order did not affect either participants' performance during prismatic exposure or the usual aftereffects, but transfer occurred only when the authors tested the exposed right hand 1st. Transfer did not occur, and proprioceptive shift for the exposed left limb decreased when the authors tested the unexposed right limb 1st. The present results suggest that transfer occurs during testing for aftereffects of prism exposure, but not during prism exposure itself, as researchers have previously assumed. Results are consistent with those of previous research that has shown that limb control is lateralized in opposite hemispheres and that the left hemisphere contains a spatial map only for the right limb.     

An examination of the relationship between personality patterns and symptom/mood patterns

Relationships between various personality styles measured by the basic and pathological personality scales of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) and mood or symptom states measured by the Profile of Mood State scales were examined. The MCMI personality scale-POMS symptom/mood scale relationships found in this study are compared with MCMI personality scale-MMPI and SCL-90 symptom/mood scale relationships reported in the MCMI manual. Consistent associations of moderate strength were found between: (a) the MCMI Compulsive-Conforming and Passive-Aggressive (Negativistic) scales (negative and positive associations, respectively) and various measures of depression, anxiety and hostility; (b) the MCMI Avoidant, Schizotypal and Borderline-Cycloid scales and various measures of depression and anxiety; (c) the MCMI Schizoid-Asocial scale and various measures of depression; and (d) the Histrionic-Gregarious scale and various measures of high energy-activity. These MCMI personality scale-symptom/mood scale relationships are generally consistent both with the underlying theory of personality and psychopathology upon which the MCMI is based and with the personality-symptom scale relationships found within the MCMI.     

Does prism adaptation affect visual search in spatial neglect patients: A systematic review

Prism adaptation (PA) is a widely used intervention for (visuo‐)spatial neglect. PA‐induced improvements can be assessed by visual search tasks. It remains unclear which outcome measures are the most sensitive for the effects of PA in neglect. In this review, we aimed to evaluate PA effects on visual search measures. A systematic literature search was completed regarding PA intervention studies focusing on patients with neglect using visual search tasks. Information about study content and effectiveness was extracted. Out of 403 identified studies, 30 met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the studies was evaluated: Rankings were moderate‐to‐high for 7, and low for 23 studies. As feature search was only performed by five studies, low‐to‐moderate ranking, we were limited in drawing firm conclusions about the PA effect on feature search. All moderate‐to‐high‐ranking studies investigated cancellation by measuring only omissions or hits. These studies found an overall improvement after PA. Measuring perseverations and total task duration provides more specific information about visual search. The two (low ranking) studies that measured this found an improvement after PA on perseverations and duration (while accuracy improved for one study and remained the same for the other). This review suggests there is an overall effect of PA on visual search, although complex visual search tasks and specific visual search measures are lacking. Suggestions for search measures that give insight in subcomponents of visual search are provided for future studies, such as perseverations, search path intersections, search consistency and using a speed–accuracy trade‐off.     

On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture.

It is often assumed that the efficient detection of salient visual objects in search reflects stimulus-driven attentional capture. Evidence for this assumption, however, comes from tasks in which the salient object is task relevant and therefore may elicit a deliberate deployment of attention. In 9 experiments, participants searched for a nonsalient target (vertical among tilted bars). In each display, 1 bar was highly salient in a different dimension (e.g., color or motion). When the target and salient elements coincided only rarely, reducing the incentive to attend deliberately to the salient stimuli, response times depended little on whether the target was salient, although some interesting exceptions were observed. It is concluded that efficient selection of an element in visual search does not constitute evidence that the element captures attention in a purely stimulus-driven fashion.