Visual Motion Aftereffect Research Articles

Modulation of auditory and visual motion aftereffects by selective attention to opposite-moving spectral components: Psychophysics and computational models

Modulation of auditory and visual motion aftereffects by selective attention to opposite-moving spectral components: Psychophysics and computational models

A visual distracter task during adaptation reduces the proprioceptive movement aftereffect

Visual processing of basic perceptual attributes depends on attention. This has been well documented since the surprising initial report on attentional modulation of the visual motion aftereffect (Chaudhuri 1990). Here, we investigate proprioception and show for the first time that attention modulates adaptation to perceived limb movement. We used biceps vibration to induce illusory forearm extension in 10 participants and measured the aftereffect-perceived movement in the opposite direction. The aftereffect was largest when participants focused on the illusory extension during the adaptation period. To divert attention away from the illusory extension, a rapid serial visual presentation task was performed during the adaptation. The aftereffect was much smaller in this condition, indicating interference between the visual task and proprioceptive adaptation. In tests of an analogous interaction between audition and vision, earlier research found no effect. We suggest that conscious proprioception requires more attention than conscious processing of visual or auditory input.

Separate motion-detecting mechanisms for first- and second-order patterns revealed by rapid forms of visual motion priming and motion aftereffect

Fast adaptation biases the perceived motion direction of a subsequently presented ambiguous test pattern (R. Kanai & F. A. Verstraten, 2005). Depending on both the duration of the adapting stimulus (ranging from tens to hundreds of milliseconds) and the duration of the adaptation-test blank interval, the perceived direction of an ambiguous test pattern can be biased towards the same or the opposite direction of the adaptation pattern, resulting in rapid forms of motion priming or motion aftereffect respectively. These findings were obtained employing drifting luminance gratings. Many studies have shown that first-order motion (luminance-defined) and second-order motion (contrast-defined) stimuli are processed by separate mechanisms. We assessed whether these effects also exist within the second-order motion domain. Results show that fast adaptation to second-order motion biases the perceived direction of a subsequently presented second-order ambiguous test pattern with similar time courses to that obtained for first-order motion. To assess whether a single mechanism could account for these results, we ran a cross-order adaptation condition. Results showed little or no transfer between the two motion cues and probes, suggesting a degree of separation between the neural substrates subserving fast adaptation of first- and second-order motion.

Visual motion aftereffects arise from a cascade of two isomorphic adaptation mechanisms.

Prolonged exposure to a moving stimulus can substantially alter the perceived velocity (both speed and direction) of subsequently presented stimuli. Here, we show that these changes can be parsimoniously explained with a model that combines the effects of two isomorphic adaptation mechanisms, one nondirectional and one directional. Each produces a pattern of velocity biases that serves as an observable "signature" of the corresponding mechanism. The net effect on perceived velocity is a superposition of these two signatures. By examining human velocity judgments in the context of different adaptor velocities, we are able to separate these two signatures. The model fits the data well, successfully predicts subjects' behavior in an additional experiment using a nondirectional adaptor, and is in agreement with a variety of previous experimental results. As such, the model provides a unifying explanation for the diversity of motion aftereffects.

Motion Aftereffects Transfer between Touch and Vision

Current views on multisensory motion integration assume separate substrates where visual motion perceptually dominates tactile motion [1, 2]. However, recent neuroimaging findings demonstrate strong activation of visual motion processing areas by tactile stimuli [3-6], implying a potentially bidirectional relationship. To test the relationship between visual and tactile motion processing, we examined the transfer of motion aftereffects. In the well-known visual motion aftereffect, adapting to visual motion in one direction causes a subsequently presented stationary stimulus to be perceived as moving in the opposite direction [7, 8]. The existence of motion aftereffects in the tactile domain was debated [9-11], though robust tactile motion aftereffects have recently been demonstrated [12, 13]. By using a motion adaptation paradigm, we found that repeated exposure to visual motion in a given direction produced a tactile motion aftereffect, the illusion of motion in the opponent direction across the finger pad. We also observed that repeated exposure to tactile motion induces a visual motion aftereffect, biasing the perceived direction of counterphase gratings. These crossmodal aftereffects, operating both from vision to touch and from touch to vision, present strong behavioral evidence that the processing of visual and tactile motion rely on shared representations that dynamically impact modality-specific perception.

Audiovisual short-term influences and aftereffects in motion: Examination across three sets of directional pairings

The study of cross-modal influences in perception, particularly between the auditory and visual modalities, has been intensified recently. This paper reports on a comprehensive study of auditory-visual cross-modal influences in motion, including motion aftereffects (MAE). We examined both auditory influences on visual perception and vice versa. Visual motion interactions were examined using three directional pairings or configurations: along the horizontal, vertical, and depth axes. In Experiment 1 we assessed how the simultaneous presence of a strong motion signal in one modality affected the perception of motion in the other modality. To investigate further whether such influences have long-term effects, we tested whether adaptation in one modality alone could produce cross-modal MAEs in Experiment 2. Overall, the pattern of results was similar across all directional pairings, with the strongest cross-modal influences observed in motion along the horizontal axis; this is likely due to the greater co-localization of the two stimuli in this configuration. Although both auditory and visual stimuli affected the other modality when presented simultaneously, significant cross-modally induced aftereffects could only be produced using visual stimuli. However, we did observe vertical visual MAE following adaptation to auditory spectral motion. These results are discussed in terms of current psychophysical and neurophysiological findings concerning the way in which auditory-visual signals are processed.

Direction of Visual Apparent Motion Driven Solely by Timing of a Static Sound

In temporal ventriloquism, auditory events can illusorily attract perceived timing of a visual onset [1-3]. We investigated whether timing of a static sound can also influence spatio-temporal processing of visual apparent motion, induced here by visual bars alternating between opposite hemifields. Perceived direction typically depends on the relative interval in timing between visual left-right and right-left flashes (e.g., rightwards motion dominating when left-to-right interflash intervals are shortest [4]). In our new multisensory condition, interflash intervals were equal, but auditory beeps could slightly lag the right flash, yet slightly lead the left flash, or vice versa. This auditory timing strongly influenced perceived visual motion direction, despite providing no spatial auditory motion signal whatsoever. Moreover, prolonged adaptation to such auditorily driven apparent motion produced a robust visual motion aftereffect in the opposite direction, when measured in subsequent silence. Control experiments argued against accounts in terms of possible auditory grouping, or possible attention capture. We suggest that the motion arises because the sounds change perceived visual timing, as we separately confirmed. Our results provide a new demonstration of multisensory influences on sensory-specific perception [5], with timing of a static sound influencing spatio-temporal processing of visual motion direction.

Adaptation of a bimodal integration stage: visual input needed during neck muscle vibration to elicit a motion aftereffect

Vibratory stimulation of the neck muscles can elicit illusory drift of a visual target; after vibration stops, motion in the opposite direction is perceived. This motion aftereffect (MAE) could be due to adaptation of proprioceptive mechanisms that encode head orientation, or at a stage where visual and proprioceptive information are combined. To distinguish between these two possibilities, we applied vibratory stimulation to dorsolateral neck muscles for 15-s periods alternating with 15-s periods without vibration. Twenty-six observers used a hand-held tracker to indicate perceived motion of a stationary light-emitting diode (LED) in an otherwise dark room. In the critical condition, observers were in complete darkness during vibration, and the LED was only turned on in post-vibration periods. If adaptation was purely proprioceptive, a visual MAE should have occurred in this condition, but it did not. In a follow-up experiment (N = 9), the LED was presented intermittently to determine if there was a position aftereffect that might have been inhibited by processes signalling an absence of motion. No aftereffect occurred under these conditions either. In both experiments, a visual stimulus had to be present during the adaptation period in order to elicit an aftereffect. Results from our previous study ruled out an explanation based on suppression of eye movements. Thus, the most likely site responsible for the visual aftereffect lies with bimodal mechanisms combining proprioceptive and visual information. We conclude that the bimodal mechanisms adapted more quickly than the proprioceptive mechanisms from which they received input.

Eye movements cannot explain vibration-induced visual motion and motion aftereffect

Eye movements are thought to account for a number of visual motion illusions involving stationary objects presented against a featureless background or apparent motion of the whole visual field. We tested two different versions of the eye movement account: (a) the retinal slip explanation and (b) the nystagmus-suppression explanation, in particular their ability to account for visual motion experienced during vibration of the neck muscles, and for the visual motion aftereffect following vibration. We vibrated the neck (ventral sternocleidomastoid muscles, bilaterally, or right dorsal muscles) and measured eye movements in conjunction with perceived illusory displacement of an LED presented in complete darkness (N=10). To test the retinal-slip explanation, we compared the direction of slow eye movements to the direction of illusory motion of the visual target. To test the suppression explanation, we estimated the direction of suppressed slow-phase eye movements and compared it to the direction of illusory motion. Two main findings show that neither actual nor suppressed eye movements cause the illusory motion and motion aftereffect. Firstly, eye movements do not reverse direction when the illusory motion reverses after vibration stops. Secondly, there are large individual differences with regards to the direction of eye movements in observers who all experience a similar visual illusion. We conclude that, rather than eye movements, a more global spatial constancy mechanism that takes into account head movement is responsible for the illusion. The results also argue against the notion of a single central signal that determines both perceptual experience and oculomotor behaviour.

Attentional modulation of the visual motion aftereffect has a central cognitive locus: evidence of interference by the postcategorical on the precategorical.

An attentionally demanding task undertaken during adaptation to motion reduces the duration of the subsequent motion aftereffect (A. Chaudhuri, 1990). Previous studies have suggested that this effect is intramodal in character, reflecting the selective deployment of visual attention. The present study demonstrates that nonvisual tasks, performed concurrently with motion adaptation, can significantly reduce the duration of the ensuing aftereffect. Three experiments converge on the conclusionthat postcategorical processes can influence otherwise unrelated concurrent precategorical processes. The experiments also show that neither perceptual input nor motor output components of the attentional task are responsible for the subsequent reduction in motion of aftereffect. The results suggest a reappraisal of findings in this area and of the general distinction between perception and cognition.

The prevalence of tactile motion aftereffects

The present study examined the prevalence of motion aftereffects (MAEs) in the sense of touch. The effects of two types of apparatuses were tested: a ridged, spinning cylinder and an array of vibrating tactors from the Optacon, a reading aid for the blind. In the first phase of the study, 50 subjects were tested for a total of 200 trials on both stimulators. Approximately one-third of the trials with both stimulators produced reports of MAEs in either the negative (expected) direction or the positive direction relative to the adapting stimulus. With the cylinder stimulator, there were significantly more reports of positive MAEs than negative MAEs. Subjects who reported MAEs in the first phase of the experiment were tested again in the second phase of the experiment. This additional testing produced results similar to those obtained in the first phase and did not produce a substantial increase in the number of reports of MAEs. It appears that tactile MAEs are not as readily generated as visual MAEs.

Close correlation between activity in brain area MT/V5 and the perception of a visual motion aftereffect

Studies in primate physiology and human functional neuroimaging have convincingly shown that the area of the brain termed MT/V5+ – which includes the middle temporal visual area MT/V5 along with adjacent motion-sensitive areas such as MST – is involved in the processing of motion information [1,2]. Tootell et al. [3] showed that the blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) signal measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in the human MT/V5+ seemingly correlates with the strength of perceived motion aftereffect (MAE), the illusory motion of a stationary pattern that one sees after adapting to a moving pattern [4]. The signal in MT/V5+ decayed slowly during the period when the MAE was seen. It is possible that this slow decrease in MT/V5+ activity was unrelated to the perceptual experience of motion. After replicating Tootell et al.'s experiment, a modified version of the experiment was conducted in which a blank period was inserted between the adapting motion stimulus and the stationary testing pattern. The results demonstrated that MT/V5+ activity indeed decayed more slowly after an effective unidirectional motion adaptation than after bidirectional adaptation, without corresponding perception of MAE. Nevertheless, in a more conclusive experiment, we adapted observers to a unidirectional motion for a very long period and showed that the activity in MT/V5+ changed in synchrony with the presence and absence of perceived MAE, simply as a result of presenting a stationary visual stimulus in and out of the adapted retinal region.

Visual motion aftereffects: Differential adaptation and test stimulation

The local motion adaptation at the basis of the motion aftereffect (MAE) can be expressed in a variety of ways, depending upon the structure of the test display [Wade et al. (1996). Vision Research, 36, 2167–2175]. Three experiments are reported, which examined the characteristics of the test display and of the local adaptation process. In Experiment 1, MAEs were recorded in the central of three test gratings but their directions depended on the location of the centre relative to the adapting gratings. The effects of adapting motions in different directions were examined in Experiments 2 and 3, in which one or two adapting gratings were presented above or above and below a fixation cross. The upper grating always received the same (leftward) direction of motion during adaptation, and the lower grating was: moving in the opposite direction, stationary, moving in the same direction, or absent. The results indicate that no MAE is visible in the upper grating when a single test grating is observed (Experiment 2) and only occurs with two test gratings following differential adaptation between the upper and lower gratings (Experiment 3). Thus, the MAE occurs as a consequence of adapting restricted retinal regions to motion but it can only be expressed when differentially adapted regions are also tested.

Visual motion aftereffects: critical adaptation and test conditions.

The visual motion aftereffect (MAE) typically occurs when stationary contours are presented to a retinal region that has previously been exposed to motion. It can also be generated following observation of a stationary grating when two gratings (above and below it) move laterally: the surrounding gratings induce motion in the opposite direction in the central one. Following adaptation, the centre appears to move in the direction opposite to the previously induced motion, but little or no MAE is visible in the surround gratings [Swanston & Wade (1992) Perception, 21, 569-582]. The stimulus conditions that generate the MAE from induced motion were examined in five experiments. It was found that: the central MAE occurs when tested with stationary centre and surround gratings following adaptation to surround motion alone (Expt 1); no MAEs in either the centre or surround can be measured when the test stimulus is the centre alone or the surround alone (Expt 2); the maximum MAE in the central grating occurs when the same surround region is adapted and tested (Expt 3); the duration of the MAE is dependent upon the spatial frequency of the surround but not the centre (Expt 4); MAEs can be observed in the surround gratings when they are themselves surrounded by stationary gratings during test (Expt 5). It is concluded that the linear MAE occurs as a consequence of adapting restricted retinal regions to motion but it can only be expressed when nonadapted regions are also tested.

Visual motion aftereffect in human cortical area MT revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure local haemodynamic changes (reflecting electrical activity) in human visual cortex during production of the visual motion aftereffect, also known as the waterfall illusion. As in previous studies, human cortical area MT (V5) responded much better to moving than to stationary visual stimuli. Here we demonstrate a clear increase in activity in MT when subjects viewed a stationary stimulus undergoing illusory motion, following adaptation to stimuli moving in a single local direction. Control stimuli moving in reversing, opposed directions produced neither a perceptual motion aftereffect nor elevated fMRI levels postadaptation. The time course of the motion aftereffect (measured in parallel psychophysical tests) was essentially identical to the time course of the fMRI motion aftereffect. Because the motion aftereffect is direction specific, this indicates that cells in human area MT are also direction specific. In five other retinotopically defined cortical areas, similar motion-specific aftereffects were smaller than those in MT or absent.

A selective history of the study of visual motion aftereffects.

The visual motion aftereffect (MAE) was initially described after observation of movements in the natural environment, like those seen in rivers and waterfalls: stationary objects appeared to move briefly in the opposite direction. In the second half of the nineteenth century the MAE was displaced into the laboratory for experimental enquiry with the aid of Plateau's spiral. Such was the interest in the phenomenon that a major review of empirical and theoretical research was written in 1911. In the latter half of the present century novel stimuli (like drifting gratings, isoluminance patterns, spatial and luminance ramps, random-dot kinematograms, and first-order and second-order motions), introduced to study space and motion perception generally, have been applied to examine MAEs. Developing theories of cortical visual processing have drawn upon MAEs to provide a link between psychophysics and physiology; this has been most pronounced in the context of monocular and binocular channels in the visual system, the combination of colour and contour information, and in the cortical sites most associated with motion processing. The relatively unchanging characteristic of the study of MAEs has been the mode of measurement: duration continues to be used as an index of its strength, although measures of threshold elevation and nulling with computer-generated motions are becoming more prevalent. The MAE is a part of the armoury of motion phenomena employed to uncover the mysteries of vision. Over the last 150 years it has proved itself immensely adaptable to the shifts of fashion in visual science, and it is likely to continue in this vein.

Auditory aftereffects following simulated motion produced by varying interaural intensity or time.

Simulated auditory motion, ie step-ramp modulated interaural intensity (delta I) or time (delta t) was presented via headphones as an adapting stimulus (narrow-band signal of 1 kHz mean frequency). After adaptation, settings of a stationary test stimulus were systematically shifted in the opposite direction when the experimental parameter was delta I, but not when it was delta t. Further studies with delta t motion with the use of mean frequencies of 100 Hz or 6 kHz showed an aftereffect only at 6 kHz. Unlike visual motion aftereffects, no counter-motion was observed; rather the test stimulus appeared stationary, but settings of its interaural midline were displaced in a direction opposite to the direction of adaptation (on average by 1.2 dB or 30 microseconds for delta I-stimulated and delta t-stimulated motion, respectively). This displacement effect decayed with time after adaptation. The frequency dependence found for delta t motion suggests that the low-frequency mechanism of directional hearing that uses interaural ongoing-time (phase) differences is not able to adapt. The observed auditory aftereffects may be analogous to visual motion aftereffects since they are direction specific; however, because they lack apparent motion they also resemble disparity-specific stereoscopic aftereffects.

Another perspective on the visual motion aftereffect.

Prolonged adaptation to motion in a given direction produces distinctly different visual motion aftereffects (MAEs) when viewing static vs. dynamic test displays. The dynamic MAE can be exactly simulated by real motion, whereas the static MAE cannot. In addition, the magnitude of the dynamic MAE depends on the bandwidth of motion directions experienced during adaptation, whereas the static MAE does not. Evidently a stationary pattern does not directly activate the neural mechanisms affected during motion adaptation, whereas a dynamic visual display does. These results imply that the traditional explanation of the MAE needs modification.

Discontinuity limits for the generation of visual motion aftereffects with sine- and square-wave gratings.

Visual motion aftereffects (MAE's) were produced with adapting gratings that underwent repeated, abrupt displacements in a uniform direction. MAE's could be generated with sine-wave gratings even when the magnitude of each displacement approached a phase angle as large as 1/2 cycle. The maximum spatial step for generating a MAE with a square-wave grating was less than 1/4 cycle. If a dark pause was introduced between the successive positions (phases) of the adapting grating, MAE's disappeared when the pause was longer than 60-70 msec. The results can be used to define the spatiotemporal-response limits of a short-range motion process (or system of directionally selective motion sensors), and the results also suggest that the individual Fourier components of complex spatial patterns are capable of producing independent signals for direction of motion.

Visual motion aftereffect induced by simulated rectilinear motion.

Visual motion aftereffect characteristics comparable to those associated with rotary and translatory movement of a test field are demonstrated for simulated rectilinear motion of the observer. The intensity and time duration of the phenomenon are shown to be positively correlated. The implications of this for individual observers are considered. The results of this experiment are correlated with those for adaptation and for recovery from adaptation that were obtained from the same group of observers. The findings are shown to support the hypothesis that visual motion affereffect is a manifestation of the adaptation recovery function of velocity sensitive mechanisms.