Literature DB >> 22245710

Motion adaptation does not depend on attention to the adaptor.

Michael J Morgan1.   

Abstract

Prolonged inspection of moving stimuli causes stationary stimuli to appear moving in the opposite direction to the adapting stimulus (the Waterfall effect). It has been claimed that distracting the viewer's attention from the adapting stimulus by a secondary task reduces the strength of adaptation. However, the method used to show the effect of distraction (the duration of the aftereffect) is potentially susceptible to bias. The experiments reported here show no effect in genuinely naïve subjects, or in experienced observers using a variety of cancellation procedures to measure the effect.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22245710      PMCID: PMC4135072          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.12.009

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


  19 in total

1.  Neural strength of visual attention gauged by motion adaptation.

Authors:  D Alais; R Blake
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  EVIDENCE FOR A PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION OF THE WATERFALL PHENOMENON AND FIGURAL AFTER-EFFECTS.

Authors:  H B BARLOW; R M HILL
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1963-12-28       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Aftereffect of seen motion with a stabilized retinal image.

Authors:  R W SEKULER; L GANZ
Journal:  Science       Date:  1963-02-01       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Attentional load and sensory competition in human vision: modulation of fMRI responses by load at fixation during task-irrelevant stimulation in the peripheral visual field.

Authors:  Sophie Schwartz; Patrik Vuilleumier; Chloe Hutton; Angelo Maravita; Raymond J Dolan; Jon Driver
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2004-09-30       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  Denoising forced-choice detection data.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  2009-05-06       Impact factor: 3.380

6.  Modulation of the motion aftereffect by selective attention.

Authors:  A Chaudhuri
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1990-03-01       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  The fate of task-irrelevant visual motion: perceptual load versus feature-based attention.

Authors:  Shuichiro Taya; Wendy J Adams; Erich W Graf; Nilli Lavie
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Attentional modulation of adaptation to two-component transparent motion.

Authors:  M J Lankheet; F A Verstraten
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  Predicting the motion after-effect from sensitivity loss.

Authors:  M Morgan; C Chubb; J A Solomon
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-03-13       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Attentional load modulates responses of human primary visual cortex to invisible stimuli.

Authors:  Bahador Bahrami; Nilli Lavie; Geraint Rees
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2007-03-08       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  11 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.  A bias-free measure of retinotopic tilt adaptation.

Authors:  M J Morgan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Adaptation facilitates change detection even when attention is directed elsewhere.

Authors:  Michael Morgan; Joshua A Solomon
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Sustained attention is not necessary for velocity adaptation.

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

5.  Computation of relative numerosity of circular dot textures.

Authors:  Sabine Raphael; Barbara Dillenburger; Michael Morgan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Effects of crowding and attention on high-levels of motion processing and motion adaptation.

Authors:  Andrea Pavan; Mark W Greenlee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Facial Expression Aftereffect Revealed by Adaption to Emotion-Invisible Dynamic Bubbled Faces.

Authors:  Chengwen Luo; Qingyun Wang; Philippe G Schyns; Frederick A A Kingdom; Hong Xu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A bias-minimising measure of the influence of head orientation on perceived gaze direction.

Authors:  Tarryn Balsdon; Colin W G Clifford
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Illusory Increases in Font Size Improve Letter Recognition.

Authors:  Martin Lages; Stephanie C Boyle; Rob Jenkins
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-07-05

10.  The Role of Temporal and Spatial Attention in Size Adaptation.

Authors:  Alessia Tonelli; Arezoo Pooresmaeili; Roberto Arrighi
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.677

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.