Motion over the retina and the motion aftereffect

Audiovisual interactions outside of visual awareness during motion adaptation

Motion aftereffects (MAEs), illusory motion experienced in a direction opposed to real motion experienced during prior adaptation, have been used to assess audiovisual interactions. In a previous study from our laboratory, we demonstrated that a congruent direction of auditory motion presented concurrently with visual motion during adaptation strengthened the consequent visual MAE, compared to when auditory motion was incongruent in direction. Those judgments of MAE strength, however, could have been influenced by expectations or response bias from mere knowledge of the state of audiovisual congruity during adaptation. To prevent such knowledge, we now employed continuous flash suppression to render visual motion perceptually invisible during adaptation, ensuring that observers were completely unaware of visual adapting motion and only aware of the motion direction of the sound they were hearing. We found a small but statistically significant congruence effect of sound on adaptation strength produced by invisible adaptation motion. After considering alternative explanations for this finding, we conclude that auditory motion can impact the strength of visual processing produced by translational visual motion even when that motion transpires outside of awareness.

A virtual reality approach identifies flexible inhibition of motion aftereffects induced by head rotation

As we move in space, our retinae receive motion signals from two causes: those resulting from motion in the world and those resulting from self-motion. Mounting evidence has shown that vestibular self-motion signals interact with visual motion processing profoundly. However, most contemporary methods arguably lack portability and generality and are incapable of providing measurements during locomotion. Here we developed a virtual reality approach, combining a three-space sensor with a head-mounted display, to quantitatively manipulate the causality between retinal motion and head rotations in the yaw plane. Using this system, we explored how self-motion affected visual motion perception, particularly the motion aftereffect (MAE). Subjects watched gratings presented on a head-mounted display. The gratings drifted at the same velocity as head rotations, with the drifting direction being identical, opposite, or perpendicular to the direction of head rotations. We found that MAE lasted a significantly shorter time when subjects' heads rotated than when their heads were kept still. This effect was present regardless of the drifting direction of the gratings, and was also observed during passive head rotations. These findings suggest that the adaptation to retinal motion is suppressed by head rotations. Because the suppression was also found during passive head movements, it should result from visual-vestibular interaction rather than from efference copy signals. Such visual-vestibular interaction is more flexible than has previously been thought, since the suppression could be observed even when the retinal motion direction was perpendicular to head rotations. Our work suggests that a virtual reality approach can be applied to various studies of multisensory integration and interaction.

The motion aftereffect

The motion aftereffect is a powerful illusion of motion in the visual image caused by prior exposure to motion in the opposite direction. For example, when one looks at the rocks beside a waterfall they may appear to drift upwards after one has viewed the flowing water for a short period-perhaps 60 seconds. The illusion almost certainly originates in the visual cortex, and arises from selective adaptation in cells tuned to respond to movement direction. Cells responding to the movement of the water suffer a reduction in responsiveness, so that during competitive interactions between detector outputs, false motion signals arise. The result is the appearance of motion in the opposite direction when one later gazes at the rocks. The adaptation is not confined to just one population of cells, but probably occurs at several cortical sites, reflecting the multiple levels of processing involved in visual motion analysis. The effect is unlikely to be caused by neural fatigue; more likely, the MAE and similar adaptation effects provide a form of error-correction or coding optimization, or both.

Simultaneous adaptation to non-collinear retinal motion and smooth pursuit eye movement

Simultaneously adapting to retinal motion and non-collinear pursuit eye movement produces a motion aftereffect (MAE) that moves in a different direction to either of the individual adapting motions. Mack, Hill and Kahn (1989, Perception, 18, 649-655) suggested that the MAE was determined by the perceived motion experienced during adaptation. We tested the perceived-motion hypothesis by having observers report perceived direction during simultaneous adaptation. For both central and peripheral retinal motion adaptation, perceived direction did not predict the direction of subsequent MAE. To explain the findings we propose that the MAE is based on the vector sum of two components, one corresponding to a retinal MAE opposite to the adapting retinal motion and the other corresponding to an extra-retina MAE opposite to the eye movement. A vector model of this component hypothesis showed that the MAE directions reported in our experiments were the result of an extra-retinal component that was substantially larger in magnitude than the retinal component when the adapting retinal motion was positioned centrally. However, when retinal adaptation was peripheral, the model suggested the magnitude of the components should be about the same. These predictions were tested in a final experiment that used a magnitude estimation technique. Contrary to the predictions, the results showed no interaction between type of adaptation (retinal or pursuit) and the location of adapting retinal motion. Possible reasons for the failure of component hypothesis to fully explain the data are discussed.

Motion perception during selfmotion: The direct versus inferential controversy revisited

According to the traditional inferential theory of perception, percepts of object motion or stationarity stem from an evaluation of afferent retinal signals (which encode image motion) with the help of extraretinal signals (which encode eye movements). According to direct perception theory, on the other hand, the percepts derive from retinally conveyed information only. Neither view is compatible with a perceptual phenomenon that occurs during visually induced sensations of ego motion (vection). A modified version of inferential theory yields a model in which the concept of extraretinal signals is replaced by that of reference signals, which do not encode how the eyes move in their orbits but how they move in space. Hence reference signals are produced not only during eye movements but also during ego motion (i.e., in response to vestibular stimulation and to retinal image flow, which may induce vection). The present theory describes the interface between self-motion and object-motion percepts. An experimental paradigm that allows quantitative measurement of the magnitude and gain of reference signals and the size of the just noticeable difference (JND) between retinal and reference signals reveals that the distinction between direct and inferential theories largely depends on: (1) a mistaken belief that perceptual veridicality is evidence that extraretinal information is not involved, and (2) a failure to distinguish between (the perception of) absolute object motion in space and relative motion of objects with respect to each other. The model corrects these errors, and provides a new, unified framework for interpreting many phenomena in the field of motion perception.

The surface and deep structure of the waterfall illusion

The surface structure of the waterfall illusion or motion aftereffect (MAE) is its phenomenal visibility. Its deep structure will be examined in the context of a model of space and motion perception. The MAE can be observed following protracted observation of a pattern that is translating, rotating, or expanding/contracting, a static pattern appears to move in the opposite direction. The phenomenon has long been known, and it continues to present novel properties. One of the novel features of MAEs is that they can provide an ideal visual assay for distinguishing local from global processes. Motion during adaptation can be induced in a static central grating by moving surround gratings; the MAE is observed in the static central grating but not in static surrounds. The adaptation phase is local and the test phase is global. That is, localised adaptation can be expressed in different ways depending on the structure of the test display. These aspects of MAEs can be exploited to determine a variety of local/global interactions. Six experiments on MAEs are reported. The results indicated that relational motion is required to induce an MAE; the region adapted extends beyond that stimulated; storage can be complete when the MAE is not seen during the storage period; interocular transfer (IOT) is around 30% of monocular MAEs with phase alternation; large field spiral patterns yield MAEs with characteristic monocular and binocular interactions.

Motion adaptation shifts apparent position without the motion aftereffect

Adaptation to motion can produce effects on both the perceived motion (the motion aftereffect) and the position (McGraw, Whitaker, Skillen, & Chung, 2002; Nishida & Johnston, 1999; Snowden, 1998; Whitaker, McGraw, & Pearson, 1999) of a subsequently viewed test stimulus. The position shift can be interpreted as a consequence of the motion aftereffect. For example, as the motion within a stationary aperture creates the impression that the aperture is shifted in position (De Valois & De Valois, 1991; Hayes, 2000; Ramachandran & Anstis, 1990), the motion aftereffect may generate a shift in perceived position of the test pattern simply because of the illusory motion it generates on the pattern. However, here we show a different aftereffect of motion adaptation that causes a shift in the apparent position of an object even when the object appears stationary and is located several degrees from the adapted region. This position aftereffect of motion reveals a new form of motion adaptation--one that does not result in a motion aftereffect--and suggests that motion and position signals are processed independently but then interact at a higher stage of processing.

Induced rotational motion with nonabutting inducing and induced stimuli: implications regarding two forms of induced motion

Induced motion is the illusory motion of a static stimulus in the opposite direction to a moving stimulus. Two types of induced motion have been distinguished: (a) when the moving stimulus is distant from the static stimulus and undergoes overall displacement, and (b) when the moving stimulus is pattern viewed within fixed boundaries that abut the static stimulus. Explanations of the 1st type of induced motion refer to mediating phenomena, such as vection, whereas the 2nd type is attributed to local processing by motion-sensitive neurons. The present research was directed to a display that elicited induced rotational motion with the characteristics of both types of induced motion: the moving stimulus lay within fixed boundaries, but the inducing and induced stimuli were distant from each other. The author investigated the properties that distinguished the two types of induced motion. In 3 experiments, induced motion persisted indefinitely, interocular transfer of the aftereffect of induced motion was limited to about 20%, and the time-course of the aftereffect of induced motion could not be attributed to vection. Those results were consistent with fixed-boundary induced motion. However, they could not be explained by local processing. Instead, the results might reflect the detection of object motion within a complex flow-field that resulted from the observer's motion.

Detection of relative and uniform motion

We measured the lowest velocity (velocity threshold) for discriminating motion direction in relative and uniform motion stimuli, varying the contrast and the spatial frequency of the stimulus gratings. The results showed significant differences in the effects of contrast and spatial frequency on the threshold, as well as on the absolute threshold level between the two motion conditions, except when the contrast was 1% or lower. Little effect of spatial frequency was found for uniform motion, whereas a bandpass property with a peak at approximately 5 cycles per degree was found for relative motion. It was also found that contrast had little effect on uniform motion, whereas the threshold decreased with increases in contrast up to 85% for relative motion. These differences cannot be attributed to possible differences in eye movements between the relative and the uniform motion conditions, because the spatial-frequency characteristics differed in the two conditions even when the presentation duration was short enough to prevent eye movements. The differences also cannot be attributed to detecting positional changes, because the velocity threshold was not determined by the total distance of the stimulus movements. These results suggest that there are two different motion pathways: one that specializes in relative motion and one that specializes in uniform or global motion. A simulation showed that the difference in the response functions of the two possible pathways accounts for the differences in the spatial-frequency and contrast dependency of the velocity threshold.

Adaptation to relative and uniform motion

We compared the discriminability of motion direction with a relative motion stimulus after prolonged exposure to relative or uniform motion. Experiment 1 showed that the velocity threshold for the relative motion test after relative motion exposure was higher than that after uniform motion exposure, whereas no such difference was found when we tested with a uniform motion stimulus. Experiment 2 showed that prolonged exposure to relative motion decreased the discriminability of speed differences more than exposure to uniform motion. These results suggest that the visual system's pathway for relative motion signals is different from that for uniform motion signals.

Effects of attentional modulation of a stationary surround in adaptation to motion

The effect of varying the spatial relationships between an adapt/test grating and a stationary surrounding reference grating, and their interaction with diversion of attention during adaptation, were investigated in two experiments on the movement aftereffect (MAE). In experiment 1, MAEs were found to increase as the separation between the surrounding grating and the adapt/test grating decreased, but not with the area of the adapt/test grating. Although diversion during adaptation (repeating changing digits at the fixation point) reduced MAE durations, its effects did not interact with any of the stimulus variables. In experiment 2, MAE durations increased as the outer dimensions of the reference grating were increased, and this effect did interact with diversion, so that the effects of diversion were smaller when the surround grating was larger. This suggests that diversion may be affecting the inputs to an opponent process in motion adaptation, with a smaller effect on the surrounds than on the centres of antagonistic motion-contrast detectors with large receptive fields. A third experiment showed that, although repeating the word 'zero' during adaptation reduced MAEs, this reduction was smaller than that from naming a changing sequence of digits (and not significantly different from that from simply observing the changing digits), suggesting that MAE reductions are not produced only, if at all, by putative movements of the head and eyes caused by speaking.

Monocular alignment in different depth planes

We examined (a) whether vertical lines at different physical horizontal positions in the same eye can appear to be aligned, and (b), if so, whether the difference between the horizontal positions of the aligned vertical lines can vary with the perceived depth between them. In two experiments, each of two vertical monocular lines was presented (in its respective rectangular area) in one field of a random-dot stereopair with binocular disparity. In Experiment 1, 15 observers were asked to align a line in an upper area with a line in a lower area. The results indicated that when the lines appeared aligned, their horizontal physical positions could differ and the direction of the difference coincided with the type of disparity of the rectangular areas; this is not consistent with the law of the visual direction of monocular stimuli. In Experiment 2, 11 observers were asked to report relative depth between the two lines and to align them. The results indicated that the difference of the horizontal position did not covary with their perceived relative depth, suggesting that the visual direction and perceived depth of the monocular line are mediated via different mechanisms.

Visual mislocalisation induced by translational and radial background motion

Three experiments were conducted to explore how translational and radial background motion affected visual localisation. In experiment 1, subjects were asked to indicate the apparent position of a small spot of light flashing against a background of vertical stripes, at a varying point in time before and after rapid translational motion of the background to the left or right. When the spot was flashed before the background motion, subjects mislocalised it toward the central fixation point. An interesting finding was that this mislocalisation occurred in most cases when the background moved in the direction opposite to the visual half-field in which the spot was flashed. That is to say, a spot flashed on the right side of the fixation point was mislocalised when its background moved to the left, and not when it moved to the right; and the converse was also true. In experiment 2, concentric circles were used as the background, and moved in a contracting or expanding direction. The results indicated that mislocalisation toward the central fixation point occurred when a spot was flashed before contracting motion of the background. The same mislocalisation was observed for the spot flashed in the lower visual field, but not when it was flashed in the upper visual field (experiment 3). It is concluded that the mislocalisation is a visual illusion induced by a transient background motion toward the central fixation point.

Motion aftereffect of combined first-order and second-order motion

When, after prolonged viewing of a moving stimulus, a stationary (test) pattern is presented to an observer, this results in an illusory movement in the direction opposite to the adapting motion. Typically, this motion aftereffect (MAE) does not occur after adaptation to a second-order motion stimulus (i.e. an equiluminous stimulus where the movement is defined by a contrast or texture border, not by a luminance border). However, a MAE of second-order motion is perceived when, instead of a static test pattern, a dynamic test pattern is used. Here, we investigate whether a second-order motion stimulus does affect the MAE on a static test pattern (sMAE), when second-order motion is presented in combination with first-order motion during adaptation. The results show that this is indeed the case. Although the second-order motion stimulus is too weak to produce a convincing sMAE on its own, its influence on the sMAE is of equal strength to that of the first-order motion component, when they are adapted to simultaneously. The results suggest that the perceptual appearance of the sMAE originates from the site where first-order and second-order motion are integrated.

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.

Adaptation to motion of a second-order pattern: the motion aftereffect is not a general result

It has become apparent from recent work that the spatial frequency and orientation content of the first-order (luminance) carrier is very important in determining the properties of a second-order (contrast) modulation of that carrier. In light of this we examined whether there was any evidence for a motion aftereffect in one-dimensional second-order patterns containing only two sinusoidal luminance components: a spatial beat. The stimuli were either 1 cpd luminance sinusoids or 1 cpd luminance beats modulating a carrier sinusoid of 5 cpd. The magnitude of any motion aftereffect, or any directionally specific effect of adaptation, was measured for all combinations of first and second-order test and adapting patterns. Both flickering and non-flickering stimuli were used. The results indicate that a motion aftereffect is only induced by first-order adapting stimuli, and likewise, is only measurable in first-order test stimuli. We find no evidence for any directionally specific effect of adaptation in second-order stimuli, whether the test is counterphased or otherwise. These results apparently conflict with recent reports of a second-order induced motion aftereffect, but are consistent with many other findings which show differences between the detection of motion for first and second-order stimuli. We conclude that the induction of a motion aftereffect for second-order stimuli is not a general result and is critically dependent upon (amongst other things) the local properties of the stimulus, including the spatial frequency and orientation content of the first-order carrier.

Simultaneous motion contrast across space: involvement of second-order motion?

A static or counterphase (target) grating surrounded by drifting (inducer) gratings is perceived to move in the direction opposite that of the inducers. We compared the relative magnitudes of these simultaneous motion contrasts generated by both first-order and second-order stimuli. The first-order stimuli were sinusoidal luminance-modulations of a uniform field, and the second-order stimuli were sinusoidal contrast-modulations of a random-dot field. When the target was a static grating, the second-order stimuli induced little motion contrast, while the first-order stimuli of the same effective contrast produced clear motion contrast. When the target was a counterphase grating, both first- and second-order stimuli produced clear motion contrast. These results are discussed in relation to the involvement of second-order motion pathways in the relative-motion processing, and the two types of motion aftereffects obtained with static and dynamic test stimuli.

Linear motion aftereffect induced by pure relative motion

The effect of adaptation to pure relative motion was investigated for the motion aftereffect (MAE) of linear translation motion. In experiment 1, MAE induced by adaptation in the surrounding area was tested. The relative motion signal significantly increased the magnitude of MAE while local MAE in the surrounds was not affected. In experiment 2, MAE observed in the same adapted area was examined while local adaptation was cancelled out. Substantial MAE was found only when the test stimuli included the surroundings, which is considered to be favourable for relative motion mechanisms. These results clearly indicate that MAE is induced by adaptation to pure relative motion as well as by local motion. MAE should be regarded as a composite phenomenon reflecting multiple sites of adaptation including the local and the relative motion levels. The results also provide evidence for the existence of independent detecting mechanisms for relative motion processing.

Re-evaluation of local adaptation for motion aftereffect

A motion aftereffect (MAE) can be induced by stimuli moving in surrounding areas. This suggests the relevance of mechanisms for relative motion, rather than early-level motion detectors, which are considered to work locally. Experiments are reported in which the role of local adaptation in the MAE with a stimulus configuration comprising relative motion has been discussed. Sinusoidal gratings were presented in three rectangular windows: a centre window, and two windows one above and one below the central one. The surrounding top and bottom windows, which were divided into left and right halves, had gratings presented in only one of the two halves. The MAE duration was measured after adaptation to motion either in the central or in the surrounding windows, by controlling the regions with the gratings. From this, the regions of surrounding gratings were found not to have a significant effect with adaptation in the centre window. With adaptation in the surrounds, however, these regions did affect the MAE; the MAE duration was reduced when the adapted region had no gratings in the test phase. Thus, for an MAE it is necessary for the adapted area to be covered with stimuli in the test phase, which indicates the dominance of local adaptation for the MAE even when relative motion is relevant in producing the MAE.

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.

The aftereffect to relative motion does not show interocular transfer

The motion aftereffect is strongest after viewing a moving field embedded in a patterned stationary surround, which suggests that relative motion is an important signal for its generation. The contribution of relative motion to binocular aspects of the motion aftereffect was assessed. Subjects viewed uniformly moving random dots surrounded by a stationary random-dot annulus. These displays could be presented in a variety of combinations to each eye separately or to both eyes, during adaptation and test. It was found that, although the presence of relative motion during adaptation significantly extended the duration of the monocular motion aftereffect, it did not augment interocular transfer. The presence of stationary surround contours in the nonadapting eye did not influence the aftereffect in the adapting eye. The enhancement provided by stationary surround contours is largely dependent on their presence during adaptation. The presence or absence of surround contours during the test phase did not influence the duration of the aftereffect. These findings are consistent with previous suggestions that the motion aftereffect is, in part, the result of adaptation to relative motion that occurs relatively early in the visual pathway-before binocular integration.

The effect of dark and equiluminant occlusion on the interocular transfer of visual aftereffects

Lehmkuhle and Fox [(1976) Vision Research, 16, 428-430] reported that interocular transfer (IOT) of a translational motion aftereffect (MAE) was greater if the non-adapting eye viewed an equiluminant field than if it viewed a dark field. They recommended equiluminant occlusion of the non-adapted eye when measuring IOT of aftereffects. We tested this proposal in three experiments. First, we assessed IOT with equiluminant and dark occlusion for three different classes of aftereffects. Although transfer was greater with equiluminant occlusion for the translational MAE, there was no significant difference in the amount of transfer for the tilt aftereffect or the contrast threshold elevation effect. Second, we tested the hypothesis that spuriously large IOT could be the result of an aftereffect from tracking eye movements in the non-adapting eye. When potential tracking movements were reduced by using rotating spokes, a rotating spiral or contracting concentric circles, there was a corresponding reduction in the occlusion-dependent transfer. Third, we found that luminance shifts had no influence on the amount of transfer when all contours were eliminated from the non-adapting eye. We conclude that the type of occlusion used for measuring IOT of the translational MAE is important only when visible contours in the non-adapting eye contribute to the adapting process.

Modulation of motion aftereffect by surround motion and its dependence on stimulus size and eccentricity

As a mechanism to detect differential motion, we have proposed a model of 'a motion contrast detector' and have shown that it can explain the perceptual change from motion capture to induced motion with increasing stimulus size and decreasing eccentricity. To further test the feasibility of the model, we examined the effect of surround motion on the motion aftereffect (MAE) elicited in the center. Using a drifting grating surrounded by another drifting grating, the duration of MAE in the center after adaptation was measured for various surround velocities (Expt 1). MAE was stronger when the surround moved oppositely to, than together with, the center. This finding was consistent with some previous reports. Using similar stimuli, MAE was measured at various stimulus sizes and eccentricities by the cancellation technique (Expt 2). The effect of surround modulation turned out to vary with both size and eccentricity. We examined if the apparent dependence on eccentricity could reflect a simpler effect of cortical size when the data were rescaled according to a linear scaling factor. We interpret our results in terms of motion contrast detectors, possibly located in the area MT.

Attentional modulation of adaptation to two-component transparent motion

We have studied the effects of voluntary attention on the induction of motion aftereffects (MAEs). While adapting, observers paid attention to one of two transparently displayed random dot patterns, moving concurrently in opposite directions. Selective attention was found to modulate the susceptibility to motion adaptation very substantially. To measure the strength of the induced MAEs we modulated the signal-to-noise ratio of a real motion signal in a random dot pattern that was used to balance the aftereffect. Results obtained for adapting to single motion vectors show that the MAE can be represented as a shift of the psychometric function for motion direction discrimination. Selective attention to the different components of transparent motion altered the susceptibility to adaptation. Shifting attention from one component to the other caused a large shift of the psychometric curves, about 70-75% of the shift measured for the separate components of the transparent adapting stimulus. We conclude that attention can differentiate between spatially superimposed motion vectors and that attention modulates the activity of motion mechanisms before or at the level where adaptation gives rise to MAEs. The results are discussed in light of the role of attention in visual perception and the physiological site for attentional modulation of MAEs.

Motion aftereffect with flickering test patterns reveals higher stages of motion processing

A series of experiments was conducted to clarify the distinction between motion aftereffects (MAEs) with static and counterphasing test patterns (static and flicker MAEs). It was found that while the motion of higher-order structure, such as areas defined by texture, flicker, or stereoscopic depth, induces little static MAE, such motion reliably generates flicker MAE. It was also found that static and flicker MAEs were induced in opposite directions for stimuli in which first- and second-order structures moved in opposite directions (compound graftings of 2f + 3f or 2f + 3f + 4f, shifting a half cycle of 2f). When the test was static, MAE was induced in the direction opposite to the first-order motion; but when the test was counterphasing, MAE was induced in the direction opposite to the second-order motion. This means that static MAE is predominantly induced by first-order motion, but that flicker MAE is affected strongly by second-order motion, along with first-order motion. The present results suggest that static MAE primarily reflects adaptation of a low-level motion mechanism, where first-order motion is processed, while flicker MAE reveals a high-level motion processing, where both first- and second-order motion signals are available.

Frames of reference and motion aftereffects

Evidence concerning the origin of the motion aftereffect (MAE) is assessed in terms of a model of levels of representation in visual motion perception proposed by Wade and Swanston. Very few experiments have been designed so as to permit unambiguous conclusions to be drawn. The requirements for such experiments are identified. Whereas retinocentric motion could in principle give rise to the MAE, data are not available which would enable a conclusion to be drawn. There is good evidence for a patterncentric origin, indicating that the MAE is primarily the result of adaptation in the systems responsible for detecting relative visual motion. There is evidence for a further contribution from the process that compensates retinocentric motion for eye movements, in the form of nonveridical information for eye movements. There may also be an effect at the level at which perceived distance and self-movement information are combined with egocentric motion to give a geocentric representation which provides the basis for reports of phenomenal experience. It is concluded that the MAE can be caused by changes in activity at more than one level of representation, and cannot be ascribed to a single underlying process.