Aftereffects of apparent motion: the existence of an AND-type binocular system in human vision

Sigmund Exner's (1887) Einige Beobachtungen über Bewegungsnachbilder (Some Observations on Movement Aftereffects): An Illustrated Translation With Commentary

In his original contribution, Exner's principal concern was a comparison between the properties of different aftereffects, and particularly to determine whether aftereffects of motion were similar to those of color and whether they could be encompassed within a unified physiological framework. Despite the fact that he was unable to answer his main question, there are some excellent-so far unknown-contributions in Exner's paper. For example, he describes observations that can be related to binocular interaction, not only in motion aftereffects but also in rivalry. To the best of our knowledge, Exner provides the first description of binocular rivalry induced by differently moving patterns in each eye, for motion as well as for their aftereffects. Moreover, apart from several known, but beautifully addressed, phenomena he makes a clear distinction between motion in depth based on stimulus properties and motion in depth based on the interpretation of motion. That is, the experience of movement, as distinct from the perception of movement. The experience, unlike the perception, did not result in a motion aftereffect in depth.

Interocular Transfer of a Rotational Motion Aftereffect as a Function of Eccentricity

In previous psychophysical investigations it has been reported that the angular extent over which the human visual field is served by binocular neurons in the visual cortex is limited to the central 40°. However, these reports have been primarily based on data collected with static stimuli. Here we extend this investigation to include dynamic stimuli. Interocular transfer of the rotary motion aftereffect (rMAE) was measured for three stimulus diameters: 5, 30, and 62 deg. Interocular transfer, expressed as a percentage of monocular adapt/test rMAE duration was significantly reduced for stimulus diameter of 62 deg relative to 30 and 5 deg diameters. Nevertheless, interocular transfer durations still comprised a significant percentage of same-eye adapt/test durations (46.9%), comparable to previous reports of transfer MAE durations in near-central vision. The spatial extent of binocular interaction is likely stimulus specific and is still appreciable in the far periphery for complex-motion stimuli.

Binocular contrast interactions in two-frame motion discrimination

Previous studies have shown that two-frame motion detection thresholds are elevated if one frame's contrast is raised, despite the increase in average contrast--the "contrast paradox". In this study, we investigated if such contrast interactions occurred at a monocular or binocular site of visual processing. Two-frame motion direction discrimination thresholds were measured for motion frames that were presented binocularly, dichoptically or interocularly. Thresholds for each presentation condition were measured for motion frames that comprised either matched or unmatched contrasts. The results showed that contrast mechanisms producing the contrast paradox combine contrast signals from both eyes prior to motion computation. Furthermore, the results are consistent with the existence of monocular and binocular contrast gain control mechanisms that coexist either as combined or independent systems.

A motion aftereffect seen more strongly by the non-adapted eye: evidence of multistage adaptation in visual motion processing

We found that the motion aftereffect measured using a directionally ambiguous counterphase grating (flicker MAE) can be stronger when it is measured for the non-adapted eye than when measured for the adapted eye. The monocularly viewed adaptation stimulus was the movement of a missing-fundamental grating (2f+3f motion), for which the movement of the higher-order spatial structure was dominantly perceived, while the first-order structure was physically moving in the opposite direction. For observers who perceived the MAE consistently in the direction opposite to the movement of the higher-order structures, the MAE was larger for the non-adapted eye than for the adapted eye. This finding of 'over-100% transfer' invalidates the standard view that the IOT is a direct measure of the binocularity of the adapted neurones. In addition, the finding provides convincing support for the hypothesis that the flicker MAE reflects adaptation at multiple processing stages