Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T19:01:43.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Binocular rivalry suppression disrupts recovery from motion adaptation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2009

Heidi Wiesenfelder and
Randolph Blake
Heidi Wiesenfelder
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville
Randolph Blake
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The motion after-effect (MAE) lasts longer when the test period does not immediately follow adaptation, a phenomenon called storage. Does storage of the MAE occur if the test target is present but rendered phenomenally invisible owing to the presence of a rival target presented to the other eye during the storage period? Our experiment addressed this question. Following adaptation to a drifting grating, an intervening period preceded testing with a stationary grating. During this period, the adapted eye either viewed the test target immediately or was occluded, and the unadapted eye either viewed a high-contrast rival target or was occluded. Thus four conditions were employed. The duration of the residual MAE was found to be longer for the rivalry condition (grating and rival target viewed) than for the normal MAE condition (grating viewed), and comparable to that in the stored MAE condition (both eyes occluded). Thus, the MAE is stored when the test target is rendered invisible due to binocular rivalry, indicating that a suppressed target is ineffective at promoting decay of the MAE. So while suppression does not prevent information about the adapting grating from reaching the site of generation of the MAE (Lehmkuhle & Fox, 1975), it can prevent information about the test target from reaching the site of the stored MAE. Current models attribute the MAE to reduced responsiveness of direction-selective cortical neurons (Sutherland, 1961; Barlow & Hill, 1963). Thus, storage should reflect a differential return of these adapted cells to preadapted response levels, dependent on postadaptation stimulation. From our results we deduce that storage does not occur at all sites at which motion adaptation occurs. Rather, decay of the MAE is dependent on postadaptation stimulation at higher levels of adaptation, and independent at earlier levels.

Keywords

Motion after-effectBinocular rivalrySuppressionStorageMotion adaptation

Information

Type
Research Articles
Information
Visual Neuroscience , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , August 1992, pp. 143 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adelson, E.H. & Movshon, J.A. (1982). Phenomenal coherence of moving visual patterns. Nature 300, 523–525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, H.B. & Hill, R.M. (1963). Evidence for a physiological explanation of the waterfall phenomenon and figural after-effects. Nature 200, 1345–1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beverley, K. & Regan, D. (1979). Separable after-effects of changingsize and motion-in-depth: Different neural mechanisms? Vision Research 19, 727–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, R. & Fox, R. (1974). Adaptation to invisible gratings and the site of binocular rivalry suppression. Nature 249, 488–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blakemore, C. & Campbell, F.W. (1969). On the existence of neurons in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. Journal of Physiology 203, 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnet, C. & Pouthas, V. (1972). Interactions between spatial and kinetic dimensions in movement after-effect. Perception and Psychophysics 12, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braddick, O.J. (1980). Low-level and high-level processes in apparent motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (London) 290, 137–151.Google ScholarPubMed
Cavanagh, P. & Favreau, O.E. (1980). Motion after-effect: A global mechanism for the perception of rotation. Perception 9, 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dealy, R.S. & Tolhurst, D.J. (1974). Is spatial adaptation an after-effect of pronged adaptation? Journal of Physiology 241, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirita, T. (1987). Contrast response of direction-specific mechanisms inferred from measurements of motion after-effects at two phases: Evidence for two motion mechanisms. Tohoku Psychologica Folia 46, 86–96.Google Scholar
Lehmkuhle, S.W. & Fox, R. (1975). Effect of binocular rivalry suppression on the motion after-effect. Vision Research 15, 855–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livingstone, M.S. & Hubel, D.H. (1987). Psychophysical evidence for separate channels for the perception of form, color, movement, and depth. Journal of Neuroscience 1, 3416–3468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logothetis, N.K. & Schall, J.D. (1989). Neuronal correlates of subjective visual perception. Science 245, 761–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maffei, L., Fiorentini, A. & Bisti, S. (1973). Neural correlates of perceptual adaptation to gratings. Science 182, 1036–1038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahmud, S. (1987). Motion After-Effect: Short And Long Term Storage. Psychological Studies 32, 123–126.Google Scholar
Masland, R.H. (1969). Visual motion perception: Experimental modification. Science 165, 819–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Movshon, J. A., Adelson, E., Gizzi, M. & Newsome, W. (1985). The analysis of moving visual patterns. In Pattern Recognition Mechanisms, ed. Chagas, C., Gattass, R. & Gross, C., pp. 117–151. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohzawa, I., Sclar, G. & Freeman, R.D. (1985). Contrast gain control in the cat's visual system. Journal of Neurophysiology 54, 651–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'shea, R.P. & Crassini, B. (1981). Interocular transfer of the motion after-effect is not reduced by binocular rivalry. Vision Research 21, 801–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, S.E., Baker, J.F. & Ailman, J.M. (1985). Direction-specific adaptation in area MT of the owl monkey. Brain Research 346, 146–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramachandran, V.S. (1991). Form, motion, and binocular rivalry. Science 251, 950–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spigel, L.M. (1960). The effects of differential post-exposure illumination on the decay of a movement after-effect. Journal of Psychology 50, 209–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spigel, L.M. (1962). Contour absence as a critical factor in the inhibition of the decay of a movement after-effect. Journal of Psychology 54, 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spigel, L.M. (1964). The use of decay inhibition in an examination of central mediation in movement after-effects. Journal of General Psychology 70, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, N. (1961). Figural after-effects and apparent size. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 13, 222–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M.M. (1963). Tracking the decay of the after-effect of seen rotary movement. Perceptual and Motor Skills 16, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vautin, R.G. & Berkley, M.A. (1977). Responses of single cells in cat visual cortex to prolonged stimulus movement: Neural correlates of visual after-effects. Journal of Neurophysiology 40, 1051–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, N.J. & Wenderoth, P. (1978). The influence of colour and contour rivalry on the magnitude of the tilt after-effect. Vision Research 18, 827–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watson, A.B., Nielson, K.R.K., Poirson, A., Fitzhugh, A., Bilson, A., Nguyen, K. & AhumadaA.J., Jr. A.J., Jr. (1986). Use of a raster frame and buffer in vision research. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 18, 587–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesenfelder, H. & Blake, R. (1990). The neural site of binocular rivalry relative to the analysis of motion in the human visual system. Journal of Neuroscience 10, 3880–3888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, A. (1911). On the after-effect of seen movement. British Journal of Psychology (Suppl.) 1, 1–117.Google Scholar