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

Optic Flow: A History

The concept of optic flow, a global pattern of visual motion that is both caused by and signals self-motion, is canonically ascribed to James Gibson's 1950 book "The Perception of the Visual World." There have, however, been several other developments of this concept, chiefly by Gwilym Grindley and Edward Calvert. Based on rarely referenced scientific literature and archival research, this article describes the development of the concept of optic flow by the aforementioned authors and several others. The article furthermore presents the available evidence for interactions between these authors, focusing on whether parts of Gibson's proposal were derived from the work of Grindley or Calvert. While Grindley's work may have made Gibson aware of the geometrical facts of optic flow, Gibson's work is not derivative of Grindley's. It is furthermore shown that Gibson only learned of Calvert's work in 1956, almost a decade after Gibson first published his proposal. In conclusion, the development of the concept of optic flow presents an intriguing example of convergent thought in the progress of science.

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.