Schofield A J, Ledgeway T, Hutchinson C V, 2006, "Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first-order and second-order cues" Perception 35 ECVP Abstract Supplement
Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first-order and second-order cues
A J Schofield, T Ledgeway, C V Hutchinson
Recent work on motion processing has suggested a distinction between first-order cues [such as luminance (LM)] and second-order cues [such as contrast modulations (CM) and orientation modulations (OM)]. Although detected independently, both the tilt aftereffect and the contrast reduction aftereffect transfer symmetrically between static LM, CM, and OM cues (Georgeson and Schofield, 2002 Spatial Vision 16 59 - 76; Cruickshank and Schofield, 2005 Spatial Vision 18 379 - 398). We tested for transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect (dMAE) between LM, CM and OM, matched for visibility and imposed on 1 D, vertical dynamic noise. Observers adapted to 0.5 cycle deg-1 horizontal modulations for 2 min (with 10 s top-ups). Strong within cue dMAEs (as estimated from the modulation-depth ratio required to produce a stationary percept from a pair of superimposed test gratings moving in opposite directions) were found to transfer from LM to CM and OM, and from CM to OM but not from CM to LM, or from OM to CM or LM. Where present, the dMAE was spatial-frequency tuned for LM and CM tests but not for OM. This asymmetric transfer of the dMAE between first-order and second-order cues suggests a processing hierarchy with separation even among the second-order cues.
[Supported by BBSRC Responsive Research Grant (BB/C518181/1) to TL and EPSRC grant (GR/S07254/01) to AJS.]
These web-based abstracts are provided for ease of seaching and access, but certain aspects (such as as mathematics) may not appear in their optimum form. For the final published version of this abstract, please see
ECVP 2006 Abstract Supplement (complete) size: 2368 Kb