Figural after-effects and apparent size

Sutherland (1954) obtained results which suggest that when the retinal size of test and inspection figures is equal, the direction of the FAE may be determined by the relative apparent sizes of the two figures. Other investigators have reproduced this result when exactly the same conditions were used: when the conditions were changed the result was not obtained. In the present paper these results are discussed and an attempt is made to determine why the effect is not obtained with small variations in the experimental conditions. It is further shown that some FAE phenomena cannot be explained by the two main existing theories; these phenomena could be explained if some analysis of the stimulus is being performed before the stage of the nervous system at which the process underlying FAEs occurs. Some recent physiological evidence (Hubel and Wiesel, 1959) supports this hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, it is likely that further work on FAEs determined by apparent size may help to throw light on the physiological mechanisms underlying size constancy, and some further experiments are suggested.     

Figural after-effects, retinal size, and apparent size

The results of earlier experiments on the question of whether figural after-effects are affected by apparent as opposed to retinal size are shown to be inconclusive. A new hypothesis is proposed namely that both factors may be responsible for producing figural aftereffects, and four experiments have been made to test it. Situations were used in which the apparent sizes of the figures were determined by the size-constancy effect. It was found that where retinal sizes of test and inspection figures are the same and apparent sizes are different, figural after-effects in the direction which would be predicted on the basis of apparent sizes are obtained. It was further shown that where retinal and apparent sizes are in conflict, whether a figural after-effect is seen or not, and the direction of the figural after-effect, depends upon the balance between these two factors.     

Direct-effects and after-effects of dynamic adaptation on intralimb and interlimb transfer

After-effects following sensorimotor adaptation are generally considered as evidence for the formation of an internal model, although evidence lacks on whether the absence of after-effects necessarily indicates that the adaptation did not result in the formation of an internal model. Here, we examined direct- and after-effects of dynamic adaptation with one arm at one workspace on subsequent performance with the other arm, as well as the same arm at another workspace. During training, subjects performed reaching movements under a novel dynamic condition with the right arm; during testing, they performed reaching movements with the left or right arm at a new workspace, under either the same dynamic condition (direct-effects) or a normal condition (after-effects). Results showed significant transfer within the same arm in terms of both direct- and after-effects, but significant transfer across the arms only in terms of direct-effects. These findings suggest that the formation of an internal model does not always result in after-effects. They also support the idea that the neural representation developed after sensorimotor adaptation comprise some aspects that are effector independent and other aspects that are effector dependent; and that direct- and after-effects following sensorimotor adaptation mainly reflect the effector-independent and the effector-dependent aspects, respectively.     

Resistance to satiation: Reinforcing effects of food and eating under satiation

It has been shown previously that rats which have learned a response when hungry will continue to make that response when tested satiated, a phenomenon labeled resistance to satiation. Here we showed that rats which were previously trained hungry will learn a new response for the opportunity to consume pellets in a new situation when tested satiated. In four experiments various groups received each of the components of the training given when rats learn an instrumental response when hungry. Rats were placed in the goalbox of a straight alley and given food pellets when hungry or were hungry only in their home cages prior to running a straight alley in the satiated test in Experiment 1. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4 learning of a differential conditioning problem for pellets in S+ (nonreward in S?) was measured in the satiated test. Groups given pellets in their home cages when hungry with or without alley exposure learned to run more rapidly in S+ than in S? in the satiated test phase. The tendency to eat pellets in the apparatus and the reinforcing effect of eating the pellets was larger for rats which ate the pellets when hungry in their home cage than for rats which ate the pellets when satiated in their home cage. Being hungry in the home cage with no pellets was not sufficient to produce eating or running for pellets in the satiated test, indicating that any inherent reinforcing effect of the pellets is not sufficient to produce eating or running, and that incomplete satiation cannot account for the learning. These data indicate that a reinforcing effect of eating pellets under satiation is an important determiner of resistance to satiation.     

Figural emphasis and person perception

Based on Jones and Nisbett's (1972) proposition that actor-observer differences in causal attributions derive from differences in attentional focus, it was hypothesized that observers' focus of attention would influence their causal attributions for an actor's behavior. More specifically, it was predicted that the behavior of an actor who was the focus of attention by virtue of some salient physical attribute would be attributed by observers more to dispositional causes and less to situational causes than would the behavior of a less physically salient actor. The manipulations of physical salience were based upon Gestalt laws of figural emphasis in object perception. They included brightness (Study I), motion (Study II), pattern complexity (Study III), and contextual novelty (Studies IV and V). The results revealed that the salinece of the actors' environments (i.e., the other people present) rather than the salience of the actor him/herself had the most consistent influence on causal attributions. When environmental salience was high, behavior was attributed relatively more situationally than when it was low. Prior research findings are considered in light of the proposition that causal attributions for an actor's behavior vary only with the salience of his/her environment, and additional implications of this phenomenon are suggested. Some ambiguities in the application of Gestalt principles to the perception of people are discussed.