Interocular transfer of the colour-contingent movement aftereffect: Doubts and difficulties

1980 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.P. Harris ◽  
M.J. Potts
1966 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 601-602
Author(s):  
Lionel G. Standing

A retinal origin for visual movement aftereffect is not refuted by the occurrence of interocular transfer and is supported by recent experimental results.


Perception ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas J Wade

The duration of the movement aftereffect was measured in twenty-four normally binocular subjects and in eighteen subjects who lacked stereopsis as a consequence of childhood strabismus. Aftereffects were generated monocularly and binocularly, and compared to those which occurred after adaptation of one eye and testing with the other. Normal subjects were categorized on two indices of eye dominance, which involved sighting and rivalry tests. The monocular-aftereffect durations were slightly longer when the dominant eye was used, and interocular transfer from the dominant eye to the nondominant eye was greater than the transfer in the reverse direction; however, these differences were not statistically significant. The results from the strabismic subjects suggested that they fell into two distinct groups: one group (seven of the eighteen subjects) experienced no interocular transfer in either direction; the other group did yield some interocular transfer, and it was generally greater after adaptation of the dominant eye and testing the nondominant eye than in the reverse direction. Six of the seven subjects who failed to show any transfer still had misalignment of the visual axes, but this was not the case in any of the subjects exhibiting transfer.


2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorraine G. Allan ◽  
Teresa A. Molino ◽  
Shepard Siegel

Perception ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
J E W Mayhew

A microtextured surface such as a homogeneously illuminated tracing-paper screen provides an excellent test surface for the movement aftereffect. When it is moved against the aftereffect at the appropriate velocity, a null occurs and the screen appears stationary. However, if patterned illumination is superimposed on the homogeneous field, the nulling breaks down. The pattern appears to move in one direction, driven by the aftereffect, and the screen can be clearly seen moving in the opposite direction. This breakdown begins to occur at luminances just above threshold for the detection of the pattern. The implication is that two populations of motion detectors are involved. Evidence in support of this postulate is presented.


1980 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 178-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Pounds ◽  
Phyllis Williamson ◽  
Carl Cheney
Keyword(s):  

1977 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
J GRAVES ◽  
M GOODALE

Nature ◽  
1959 ◽  
Vol 184 (4697) ◽  
pp. 1516-1517 ◽  
Author(s):  
IAN P. HOWARD
Keyword(s):  

Perception ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 1233-1240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Thompson ◽  
Justin Wright

Wohlgemuth, having measured the duration of the motion aftereffect (MAE), instructed subjects to close their eyes immediately after adaptation for a period of time longer than the MAE. Upon opening their eyes the subjects reported a residual effect, albeit somewhat shorter than the original effect. Thus the decay of the aftereffect appeared to have been retarded by the period of darkness. This effect is known as ‘storage’ and poses a problem for any model of the MAE based on the fatiguing of direction-selective units in the visual pathway. A reexamination is made of storage of the MAE, again concentrating on the intervening stimulation between movement adaptation and aftereffect test. The results suggest that the nature of the intervening pattern between adaptation and test conditions is remarkably unimportant. A total of 11 different storage patterns were examined after adaptation to high-contrast drifting horizontal sinewave gratings. For 10 of these patterns large and robust storage effects were found. The exception occurred when the spatial pattern of the storage stimulus was identical to the adaptation and test stimuli. It is proposed that storage cannot be understood in terms of a simple fatigue model of the MAE and that one component of the effect may share similarities with contingent aftereffects.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document