Literature DB >> 16530801

Predicting the motion after-effect from sensitivity loss.

M Morgan1, C Chubb, J A Solomon.   

Abstract

The widely accepted disinhibition theory of the motion after-effect (MAE) proposes that the balance point of an opponent mechanism is changed by directional adaptation. To see if the post-adaptation balance point could be predicted from contrast adaptation, we measured threshold-vs-contrast (i.e., T-vs-C or dipper) functions, before and after adaptation to moving gratings. For test stimuli moving in the same direction, adaptation shifted the point of maximum facilitation (i.e., the dip) upwards and rightwards. For tests moving in the opposite direction, adaptation produced a similar, but smaller, shift. These shifts are consistent with a change in divisive gain control. They are also consistent with subtractive inhibition followed by half-wave rectification. We attempted to use transducer functions derived from these data to predict the strength of the MAE. When combined, gratings moving in the adapted and opposite directions appeared perfectly balanced (i.e., counterphasing) when the latter was given approximately 2% more contrast than was predicted on the basis of the derived transducers. This small under-prediction may be indicative of sensory recalibration. Finally, we found that adaptation did not alter the fact that low-contrast stimuli could be detected and their direction identified with similar accuracy. We conclude that both static and dynamic forms of MAE are primarily caused by a decreased sensitivity in directionally tuned mechanisms, as proposed by the disinhibition theory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16530801     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.01.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  9 in total

1.  Wohlgemuth was right: distracting attention from the adapting stimulus does not decrease the motion after-effect.

Authors:  Michael J Morgan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-07-31       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  Motion adaptation does not depend on attention to the adaptor.

Authors:  Michael J Morgan
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 3.  Adaptation and visual coding.

Authors:  Michael A Webster
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  Sustained attention is not necessary for velocity adaptation.

Authors:  Michael Morgan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Contrast sensitivity functions in autoencoders.

Authors:  Qiang Li; Alex Gomez-Villa; Marcelo Bertalmío; Jesús Malo
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2022-05-03       Impact factor: 2.004

Review 6.  The motion aftereffect reloaded.

Authors:  George Mather; Andrea Pavan; Gianluca Campana; Clara Casco
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-10-24       Impact factor: 20.229

7.  Decision-level adaptation in motion perception.

Authors:  George Mather; Rebecca J Sharman
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2015-12-02       Impact factor: 2.963

8.  Visual aftereffects and sensory nonlinearities from a single statistical framework.

Authors:  Valero Laparra; Jesús Malo
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  What is the primary cause of individual differences in contrast sensitivity?

Authors:  Daniel H Baker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.