Abstract

The ability to correctly determine the position of objects in space is a fundamental task of the visual system. The perceived position of briefly presented static objects can be influenced by nearby moving contours, as demonstrated by various illusions collectively known as motion-induced position shifts. Here we use a stimulus that produces a particularly strong effect of motion on perceived position. We test whether several regions-of-interest (ROIs), at different stages of visual processing, encode the perceived rather than retinotopically veridical position. Specifically, we collect functional MRI data while participants experience motion-induced position shifts and use a multivariate pattern analysis approach to compare the activation patterns evoked by illusory position shifts with those evoked by matched physical shifts. We find that the illusory perceived position is represented at the earliest stages of the visual processing stream, including primary visual cortex. Surprisingly, we found no evidence of percept-based encoding of position in visual areas beyond area V3. This result suggests that while it is likely that higher-level visual areas are involved in position encoding, early visual cortex also plays an important role.

Highlights

  • To perceive the world correctly, we must know what objects are present in a visual scene, and where they are located

  • Participants performed the psychophysical experiment prior to scanning, and the physical shift in conditions CLW-S and CCW-S during the fMRI experiment was matched to the perceptual effect size of each individual participant

  • This effect was exclusive to the early visual areas—no significant correlations were found in hMT+ or intraparietal sulcus (IPS)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

To perceive the world correctly, we must know what objects are present in a visual scene, and where they are located. A moving object may be perceived at a location quite distant from its current location in the visual field and the receptive fields that would be activated on the basis of retinal input alone. Ramachandran and Anstis (1990) and De Valois and De Valois (1991) showed that the perceived position of a physically stationary aperture or window appears displaced in the direction of a moving texture within the window—we will refer to as “the Moving Window Effect.”. In the “Flash Lag Effect,” a briefly presented, stationary stimulus is perceived as lagging behind a moving stimulus, they are physically aligned (MacKay, 1958; Nijhawan, 1994). A slight change in stimulus configuration, will lead to the “Flash Drag Effect,” in which the briefly presented flash is shifted in the direction of motion of an adjacent texture, in the absence of spatial overlap

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call