After adaptation to a perspective simulation of a square plane rotating in depth, an ambiguous rotation simulation (ie one containing no perspective information) appears to rotate in the direction opposite that of adaptation. The strength of this three-dimensional motion aftereffect (MAE) is proportional to the amount of perspective available in the adaptation display and, in the dark, decays to about 75% of its initial strength within about 546 s. The nature of the testing situation and a control experiment suggest that the three-dimensional MAE is not caused by retinal adaptation of two-dimensional directionally selective mechanisms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AddamsR, 1834“An account of a peculiar optical phenomenon seen after looking at a moving body”Philosophy Magazine (3rd series) 5373–374
2.
AnstisS M, 1975“What does visual perception tell us about visual coding?” in Handbook of Psychobiology Eds GazzanigaM SBlakemoreC (New York: Academic Press) pp 269–323
3.
BarlowH BHillR M, 1963“Evidence for a physiological explanation of the waterfall phenomenon and figure aftereffects”Nature (London)2001345–1347
4.
BarlowH BHillW RLevickJ, 1964“Retinal ganglion cells responding selectively to direction and speed of image motion in the rabbit”Journal of Physiology (London)173377–407
5.
BraunsteinM L, 1976Depth Perception through Motion (New York: Academic Press)
6.
BraunsteinM L, 1977“Perceived direction of rotation of simulated three-dimensional patterns”Perception & Psychophysics21553–557
7.
ClarkeP G H, 1974“Are visual evoked potentials to motion-reversal produced by direction-sensitive brain mechanisms?”Vision Research141281–1284
8.
HershbergerW AUrbanD, 1970“Depth perception from motion parallax in one-dimensional polar projections: Projection versus viewing distance”Journal of Experimental Psychology86133–136
9.
MitchellD EReardonJMuirD W, 1975“Interocular transfer of the motion after-effect in normal and stereoblind observers”Experimental Brain Research22163–173
10.
PantleASekulerR, 1968“Velocity-sensitive elements in human vision: Initial psychophysical evidence”Vision Research8445–450
11.
PapertS, 1964“Stereoscopic synthesis as a technique for localizing visual mechanisms”MIT Quarterly Progress Report73239–243
12.
PetersikJ T, 1979“Perception of simultaneous simulations of two rotating spheres in the same visual locale”Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society14131–134
13.
PetersikJ T, 1980“The effects of spatial and temporal factors on the perception of stroboscopic rotation simulations”Perception9271–283
14.
ReganD MBeverleyK I, 1978“Illusory motion in depth: Aftereffect of adaptation to changing size”Vision Research18209–212
15.
ReganD MCynaderM, 1979“Neurons in area 18 of cat visual cortex selectively sensitive to changing size: Nonlinear interactions between responses to two edges”Vision Research191093–1104
16.
SekulerR, 1975“Visual motion perception” in Handbook of Perception volume 5: Seeing Eds CarteretteE CFriedmanM P (New York: Academic Press) pp 387–430
17.
SekulerRGanzL, 1963“Aftereffect of seen motion with a stabilized retinal image”Science139419–421
18.
SekulerRPantleALevinsonE, 1978“Physiological basis of motion perception” in Handbook of Sensory Physiology volume 8: Perception Eds HeldRLeibowitzH WTeuberH-L (New York: Springer) pp 67–96
19.
SpigelI M, 1960“The effects of post-exposure illumination on the decay of a movement aftereffect”Journal of Psychology50209–210
20.
TynanPSekulerR, 1975“Moving visual phantoms: A new contour completion effect”Science188951–953
21.
VirsuV, 1975“Determination of perspective reversals”Nature (London)257786–787
