Literature DB >> 24178065

Perceptual adaptation to structure-from-motion depends on the size of adaptor and probe objects, but not on the similarity of their shapes.

Alexander Pastukhov1, Anna Lissner, Jochen Braun.   

Abstract

Perceptual adaptation destabilizes the phenomenal appearance of multistable visual displays. Prolonged dominance of a perceptual state fatigues the associated neural population, lowering the likelihood of renewed perception of the same appearance (Nawrot & Blake in Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 230-44, 1991). Here, we used a selective adaptation paradigm to investigate perceptual adaptation for the illusory rotation of ambiguous structure-from-motion (SFM) displays. Specifically, we generated SFM objects with different three-dimensional shapes and presented them in random order, separating successive objects by brief blank periods, which included a mask. To assess the specificity of perceptual adaptation to the shape of SFM objects, we established the probability that a perceived direction of rotation persisted between successive objects of similar or dissimilar shape. We found that the strength of negative aftereffects depended on the volume, but not the shape, of adaptor and probe objects. More voluminous objects were both more effective as adaptor objects and more sensitive as probe objects. Surprisingly, we found these volume effects to be completely independent, since any relationship between two shapes (such as overlap between volumes, similarity of shape, or similarity of velocity profiles) failed to modulate the negative aftereffect. This pattern of results was the opposite of that observed for sensory memory of SFM objects, which reflects similarity between objects, but not volume of individual objects (Pastukhov et al. in Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 1215-1229, 2013). The disparate specificities of perceptual adaptation and sensory memory for identical SFM objects suggest that the two aftereffects engage distinct neural representations, consistent with recent brain imaging results (Schwiedrzik et al. in Cerebral Cortex, 2012).

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24178065     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-013-0567-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  6 in total

1.  What you see depends on what you saw, and what else you saw: the interactions between motion priming and object priming.

Authors:  Xiong Jiang; Yang Jiang; Raja Parasuraman
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 2.  The Certainty of Ambiguity in Visual Neural Representations.

Authors:  Jan W Brascamp; Steven K Shevell
Journal:  Annu Rev Vis Sci       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 7.745

3.  What happens in the brain of meditators when perception changes but not the stimulus?

Authors:  Jürgen Kornmeier; Evelyn Friedel; Lukas Hecker; Stefan Schmidt; Marc Wittmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Large EEG amplitude effects are highly similar across Necker cube, smiley, and abstract stimuli.

Authors:  Ellen Joos; Anne Giersch; Lukas Hecker; Julia Schipp; Sven P Heinrich; Ludger Tebartz van Elst; Jürgen Kornmeier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Binocular rivalry reveals an out-of-equilibrium neural dynamics suited for decision-making.

Authors:  Maurizio Mattia; Jochen Braun; Robin Cao; Alexander Pastukhov; Stepan Aleshin
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 8.140

6.  Positive and negative hysteresis effects for the perception of geometric and emotional ambiguities.

Authors:  Emanuela Liaci; Andreas Fischer; Harald Atmanspacher; Markus Heinrichs; Ludger Tebartz van Elst; Jürgen Kornmeier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.