Two kinds of adaptation in the constancy of visual direction and their different effects on the perception of shape and visual direction

Adaptation in the constancy of visual direction can be obtained under two radically different conditions, called eye-movement adaptation and field adaptation. Adaptation resulting from these conditions and from a “normal” condition was measured with a newly developed estimation test. Eye-movement adaptation was found to cause an alteration of compensatory eye movements. It apparently consists of a changed evaluation of eye movements, as demonstrated by two different pointing tests. A form test where the shape of a large oblong is set to look square also confirmed this interpretation. After field adaptation, a pointing test did not register a change, but an adaptation effect could be measured with a forward direction test. This test and a square test where no eye movements were permitted proved to be specific to field adaptation; they measured no effect after eye-movementadaptation. The normal adaptation condition Was apparently equivalent to the eye-movement adaptation condition. Its effect could be measured only with a pointing test. When we changed the normal adaptation condition so that frequent saccades were made during head turning, strong effects were measured with the two tests that were specific to field adaptation.     

Stimulus and response factors in mirror-image discrimination

Two choice-reaction time studies assessed the influence of stimulus-response mapping, stimulus complexity, and stimulus alignment on adults’ discrimination of mirror-image and nonmirror-image stimulus pairs. Half the subjects in Experiment 1 were instructed to treat nonmiiTor pairs as “same” and mirror pairs as “different”; the other half responded in the opposite manner. The first group responded more quickly to nonmirror pairs, while the second group responded more quickly to mirror pairs. This result, which held for horizontal stimuli (side by side) as well as for vertical stimuli (one above the other), confirms the importance of experiential factors in mirror-image “confusions. “ In Experiment 2. stimuli were drawn from a population of patterns whose complexity could be objectively defined. In general, the more complex the pattern, the slower the response and complexity seemed to influence the qualitative nature of pattern processing. In both experiments, subjects responded more quickly to horizontal stimuli than to vertical stimuli.