Apparent depth with retinal image motion of expansion and contraction yoked to head movement

The two main questions addressed in this study were (a) what effect does yoking the relative expansion and contraction (EC) of retinal images to forward and backward head movements have on the resultant magnitude and stability of perceived depth, and (b) how does this relative EC image motion interact with the depth cues of motion parallax? Relative EC image motion was produced by moving a small CCD camera toward and away from the stimulus, two random-dot surfaces separated in depth, in synchrony with the observers' forward and backward head movements. Observers viewed the stimuli monocularly, on a helmet-mounted display, while moving their heads at various velocities, including zero velocity. The results showed that (a) the magnitude of perceived depth was smaller with smaller head velocities (< 10 cm s-1), including the zero-head-velocity condition, than with a larger velocity (10 cm s-1), and (b) perceived depth, when motion parallax and the EC image motion cues were simultaneously presented, is equal to the greater of the two possible perceived depths produced from either of these two cues alone. The results suggested the role of nonvisual information of self-motion on perceiving depth.     

The effect of abnormal displacement of the retinal image during eye movements

The displacement of the images on the retina that results from a turning of the eye does not lead to an apparent motion of what is seen, It has been generally assumed that this is due to a compensating process which takes eye movement into account and serves to discount those image displacements that result from eye movements, It follows from this view that an abnormal image displacement, that is, an image displacement that is larger or smaller than the causing eye movement would warrant, should lead to an experienced displacement of the target. Abnormal image displacement was produced by placing the eye in the converging or diverging bundle of rays from a point source that form behind a strong positive lens; this arrangement yielded a disc-shaped image, the projection of the pupil onto the retina, which displaced abnormally during eye movements. By changing the position of the eye along the axis of the lens in relation to the crossing point of the bundle, the degree to which the displacement was abnormal could be varied, For various displacement rates ranging from 25% to 120 and 400% of normal, abnormal displacements produced by incidental eye movements remained unnoticed, Only where eye movements were intentional did some of our Ss report shifts of the perceived image. It is suggested that the organism copes with the image displacement resulting from the ever-present incidental eye movements not by compensation but by ignoring them.     

Stereoillusory motion concomitant with lateral head movements

Stationary objects in a stereogram can appear to move when viewed with lateral head movements. This illusory motion can be explained by the motion-distance invariance hypothesis, which states that illusory motion covaries with perceived depth in accordance with the geometric relationship between the position of the stereo stimuli and the head. We examined two predictions based on the hypothesis. In Experiment 1, illusory motion was studied while varying the magnitude of binocular disparity and the magnitude of lateral head movement, holding viewing distance constant. In Experiment 2, illusory motion was studied while varying binocular disparity and viewing distance, holding magnitude of head movement constant. Ancillary measures of perceived depth, perceived viewing distance, and perceived magnitude of lateral head movement were also obtained. The results from the two experiments show that the extent of illusory motion varies as a function of perceived depth, supporting the motion-distance invariance hypothesis. The results also show that the extent of illusory motion is close to that predicted from the geometry in crossed disparity conditions, whereas it is greater than the predicted motion in uncrossed disparity conditions. Furthermore, predictions based on perceptual variables were no more accurate than predictions based on geometry.     

Eye movements in response to real and apparent motions of acoustic targets.

Monitoring of eye movements resulting from the tracking of sound displacements in total darkness confirmed the generally accepted idea that smooth pursuit cannot be induced in the absence of a real visible target. Exclusively saccadic movements were obtained with real and apparent displacements of a constant frequency source and with frequency variations associated to spatially calibrated positions through training for 5 Ss. Smooth pursuit eye movements were only observed if S was allowed to point and follow with his hand the perceived position of acoustic targets.     

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.     

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.     

On the relation of adaptation to field displacement during head movements to the constancy of visual direction

When the normal constancy process on which the apparent immobility of the visualfield during head movements is based was strengthened by the same method that produces adaptation to abnormal conditions in the constancy of visual direction, and when this training of the normal constancy process immediately preceded experimental adaptation, the effectiveness of the latter was diminished. This result applied not only to adaptation to horizontal field displacement and to vertical field displacement during turning of the head, but also to vertical field displacement during nodding of the head, a condition to which adaptation was here demonstrated for the first time.     

Dual adaptation of apparent concomitant motion contingent on head rotation frequency

Perceived movement of a stationary visual stimulus during head motion was measured before and after adaptation intervals during which participants performed voluntary head oscillations while viewing a moving spot. During these intervals, participants viewed the spot stimulus moving alternately in the same direction as the head was moving during either .25- or 2.0-Hz oscillations, and then in the opposite direction as the head at the other of the two frequencies. Postadaptation measures indicated that the visual stimuli were perceived as stationary only if traveling in the same direction as that viewed during adaptation at the same frequency of head motion. Thus, opposite directions of spot motion were perceived as stationary following adaptation depending on head movement frequency. The results provide an example of the ability to establish dual (or “context-specific”) adaptations to altered visual—vestibular feedback.     

Differences in the dissipation of the effect of adaptation to two kinds of field displacement during head movements

When Ss were simultaneously adapted to horizontal and to vertical target displacements of equal rate during head turning about a vertical axis, the adaptation effects measured by one-trial tests immediately after the adaptation period were about equal. But retests after a time lapse of 10 and 20 min, during which S sat immobile and with eyes closed, showed a greatly different rate of dissipation of the two adaptation effects. After a lapse of 20 min, the effect of adaptation to horizontal target displacements had been reduced to 37%, whereas the effect of adaptation to vertical displacements at this final test still stood at 80% of the initial measurement. The decline over 20 min in the latter case was so smail that it could readily be ascribed to an effect of the two tests that preceded the final test. These two tests represented an effective exposure to natural viewing conditions and hence caused an unlearning of the adaptation, an effect whose existence we had demonstrated in previous work with the one-trial test.     

Illusory line motion and transformational apparent motion during continuous flash suppression1

A static bar is perceived to dynamically extend from a peripheral cue (illusory line motion (ILM)) or from a part of another figure presented in the previous frame (transformational apparent motion (TAM)). We examined whether visibility for the cue stimuli affected these transformational motions. Continuous flash suppression, one kind of dynamic interocular masking, was used to reduce the visibility for the cue stimuli. Both ILM and TAM significantly occurred when the d' for cue stimuli was zero (Experiment 1) and when the cue stimuli were presented at subthreshold levels (Experiment 2). We discuss that higher‐order motion processing underlying TAM and ILM can be weakly but significantly activated by invisible visual information.     

Rapid volitional control of apparent motion during percept generation

How rapidly can one voluntarily influence percept generation? The time course of voluntary visual–spatial attention is well studied, but the time course of intentional control over percept generation is relatively unknown. We investigated the latter question using “one-shot” apparent motion. When a vertical or horizontal pair of squares is replaced by its 90º-rotated version, the bottom-up signal is ambiguous. From this ambiguous signal, it is known that people can intentionally generate a percept of rotation in a desired direction (clockwise or counterclockwise). To determine the time course of this intentional control, we instructed participants to voluntarily induce rotation in a precued direction (clockwise rotation when a high-pitched tone was heard, and counterclockwise rotation when a low-pitched tone was heard), and then to report the direction of rotation that was actually perceived. We varied the delay between the instructional cue and the rotated frame (cue-lead time) from 0 to 1,067 ms. Intentional control became more effective with longer cue-lead times (asymptotically effective at 533 ms). Notably, intentional control was reliable even with a zero cue-lead time; control experiments ruled out response bias and the development of an auditory–visual association as explanations. This demonstrates that people can interpret an auditory cue and intentionally generate a desired motion percept surprisingly rapidly, entirely within the subjectively instantaneous moment in which the visual system constructs a percept of apparent motion.