Perception

In a series of experiments, the selective-adaptation paradigm was applied to the rotating-trapezoid illusion in an effort to demonstrate neural-adaptation effects in the figural reversal of this classic illusion. Prior to viewing the standard trapezoid, the observer adapted to a rectangle rotating unambiguously in the same direction as the trapezoid or in the opposite direction. In accordance with the neural hypothesis, illusion strength was greatest when the two figures rotated in the same direction and weakest when the two figures rotated in opposite directions. Results were confirmed with two separate dependent variables: the observer's ‘first look’ at the illusion after adaptation and the observer's reversal rate during a test period. These findings were discussed in terms of (a) the basic similarity of results for the rotating trapezoid and reversible figures such as the Necker cube and (b) the need for a multiprocess model of both classes of illusions which emphasizes bottom—up and top—down processes.

Most adult observers tend not to reverse ambiguous figures if they are not informed about the ambiguity of the figure. The question was asked whether very young children who have rarely, if ever, seen any kinds of ambiguous figures will reverse if uninformed, and also how they will behave if they are informed. It was found that 3 and 4 year olds never reverse when presented with two different kinds of ambiguous figures when uninformed, and only some do even when informed; further, those that do reverse do so only once or twice over a 60 s inspection period. These results are interpreted as further confirmation of an earlier finding with adults—that reversal is not simply a matter of prolonged inspection of an ambiguous figure leading automatically to neural satiation. Instead, cognitive factors such as utilization of memory and intention are implicated.

The way in which a planar surface is defined or configured may affect its apparent slant about a given axis, and the magnitude of slant-axis anisotropies. The authors have previously suggested that (i) these within-axis and between-axis configuration effects may be attributable, in part at least, to the perspective—disparity conflict generated when geometrically frontoparallel configured surfaces are slanted stereoscopically; and (ii) that implicit contours, defined by line endings or conjunctions, may have effects analogous to those seen with explicit contours. These possibilities were directly examined in two experiments. In experiment 1, slant-axis anisotropy was progressively induced by adding horizontal lines to a vertical-line (zero anisotropy) grid under conditions of cue conflict; slants about the vertical (but not the horizontal) were attenuated—demonstrating a clear and systematic nexus between surface configuration and slant-axis anisotropy. The presence of regular implicit horizontals similarly and selectively attenuated the slant perceived about the vertical. In experiment 2, cue conflict was seen to exacerbate slant-axis anisotropy, but clearly could not fully account for it. There was an axis asymmetry in the effect of degrading implicit contours: degradation had a marked impact on perceived slant about the horizontal but not the vertical axis.

Three experiments are reported in which an attempt was made to isolate the contribution of an AND channel by measuring aftereffects following alternating monocular adaptation. The first two were designed to test Wolf and Held's proposal that the binocular AND channel does not respond at contrast threshold. In the first experiment the relative sizes of monocular and binocular contrast threshold elevation were compared with the pattern of aftereffects obtained in a study of the suprathreshold tilt aftereffect. Identical patterns of results were obtained under the two adaptation conditions. In the second experiment, the monocular and binocular contrast-reduction aftereffect reported by Blakemore et al was measured over a wide range of reference contrasts. As in the previous experiment, the monocular effect was greater than the binocular effect. This occurred at all reference contrasts. These data support the conclusion that the AND channel contributes to visual performance in the same manner, irrespective of stimulus contrast. In the final experiment an alternative explanation for existing evidence against the existence of an AND channel was assessed.

We present data in which instrument accommodation was measured while knowledge of object distance was varied. The accommodative feedback loop was ‘semiopen’—an intermediate state between the closed-loop and open-loop conditions of previous experiments. The semi-open-loop situation mimicked the degraded-image conditions which are frequently encountered during instrument viewing. The results show that for some subjects knowledge of object distance is a more powerful cue for instrument accommodation than is the optical distance of the object; however, for the majority of subjects this is not the case. We also found that subjects whose accommodation is influenced by knowledge of object distance tend to have a more proximal dark focus than those whose accommodation is independent of knowledge of object distance. We propose that the Mandelbaum effect, in which involuntary accommodation occurs when a transparency is superimposed between the observer and the object of regard, could account for the accommodative behavior of all subjects. However, the Mandelbaum effect would have to be interpreted more broadly than before. In the broader interpretation, the transparency could be cognitive (ie known distance) rather than physical.

Experiments were designed to establish whether we can use the optic flow to detect changes in our own velocity. Subjects were presented with simulations of forward motion across a flat surface. They were asked to respond as quickly as possible to a step increase in simulated ego-velocity. The smallest change for which subjects could respond within 500 ms was determined. At realistic simulated speeds of locomotion, the simulated ego-velocity had to increase by about 50%. The threshold for detecting changes in simulated ego-velocity was hardly better than the threshold for detecting other changes in the acceleration of the dots on the screen. It made little difference whether the surface across which the subject appeared to move was built up of dots, lines, or triangles; neither did it matter whether subjects saw the same image with both eyes, or whether the simulation was presented in stereoscopic depth. The results show that we are very poor at detecting changes in our own velocity on the basis of visual input alone.

Psychophysical research on the Hermann grid illusion is reviewed and possible neurophysiological mechanisms are discussed. The illusion is most plausibly explained by lateral inhibition within the concentric receptive fields of retinal and/or geniculate ganglion cells, with contributions by the binocular orientation-specific cortical cells. Results may be summarized as follows: (a) For a strong Hermann grid illusion to be seen bar width must be matched to the mean size of receptive-field centers at any given retinal eccentricity. (b) With the use of this rationale, the diameter of foveal perceptive-field centers (the psychophysical correlate of receptive-field centers) has been found to be in the order of 4–5 min arc and that of total fields (centers plus surrounds) 18 min arc. These small diameters explain why the illusion tends to be absent in foveal vision. (c) With increasing distance from the fovea, perceptive-field centers increase to 1.7 deg at 15 deg eccentricity and then to 3.4 deg at 60 deg eccentricity. This doubling in diameter agrees with the change in size of retinal receptive-field centers in the monkey. (d) The Hermann grid illusion is diminished with dark adaptation. This finding is consistent with the reduction of the center—surround antagonism in retinal receptive fields. (e) The illusion is also weakened when the grid is presented diagonally, which suggests a contribution by the orientation-sensitive cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus and visual cortex. (f) Strong induction effects, similar to the bright and dark spots in the Hermann grid illusion, may be elicited by grids made of various shades of grey; and by grids varying only in chroma or hue.

Not accounted for are: the illusory spots occurring in an outline grid ie with hollow squares, and the absence of an illusion when extra bars are added to the grid. Alternative explanations are discussed for the spurious lines connecting the illusory spots along the diagonals and the fuzzy dark bands traversing the rhombi in modified Hermann grids.

The mechanisms mediating relative spatial localisation in the visual system are still unclear. There is a growing amount of evidence that this capability is not merely limited by the processing of the front-end visual system. Models of localisation should, therefore, include higher-level processing stages. A careful study of the sources of error in localisation tasks may further our understanding of the nature of these processes.

A study is reported in which the possible role of higher-order processing in relative spatial localisation is explicitly addressed. For this purpose the error sources of threshold performance were investigated for two similar relative-spatial-localisation tasks: two-dot separation discrimination and two-dot orientation discrimination. Fovea-centred stimuli with large dot separations were used. The front-end processing for these stimuli is probably identical in both tasks. Hence, differential effects of the variation of the experimental parameters on threshold performance for both tasks may reveal the characteristics of the higher-level processing involved.

The effects of dot separation, stimulus orientation, and experimental procedure (single-stimulus binary forced choice versus two-alternative forced choice) on threshold performance for both tasks are reported. The results show that thresholds for both tasks increase proportionally with dot separation. However, separation-discrimination thresholds are always significantly higher than orientation-discrimination thresholds. Thresholds for separation discrimination are independent of stimulus orientation. In contrast, orientation-discrimination thresholds show an oblique effect: thresholds are consistently lower for horizontal stimuli. Both tasks also show a different dependency of threshold behaviour on the experimental procedure. For a horizontal stimulus orientation, separation discrimination is better with an explicit (physical) reference standard, whereas orientation discrimination is better with an implicit referent.

These differential effects cannot be explained by any of the known characteristics of the front-end visual system. They suggest that large-scale spatial-localisation performance is probably limited at a processing level at which spatial relations are explicitly represented.