PubMed · 6622198
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S A Wurst, G M Long. 1983. Laterality and visual persistence: still a two-sided issue.. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202944
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during storage of the motion aftereffect (MAE) to examine the relationship between motion perception and neural activity in the human cortical motion complex MT+ (including area MT and adjacent motion-selective cortex). MT+ responds not only to physical motion but also to illusory motion, as in the MAE when subjects who have adapted to continuous motion report that a subsequent stationary test stimulus appears to move in the opposite direction. In the phenomenon of storage, the total decay time of the MAE is extended by inserting a dark period between adaptation and test phases. That is, when the static test pattern is presented after a storage period equal in duration to the normal MAE, the illusory motion reappears for almost as long as the original effect despite the delay. We examined fMRI activation in MT+ during and after storage. Seven subjects viewed continuous motion, followed either by an undelayed stationary test (immediate MAE) or by a completely dark storage interval preceding the test (stored MAE). Like the perceptual effect, activity in MT+ dropped during the storage interval then rebounded to reach a level much higher than after the same delay without storage. Although MT+ activity was slightly enhanced during the storage period following adaptation to continuous motion (compared with a control sequence in which the adaptation grating oscillated and no MAE was perceived), this enhancement was much less than that observed during the perceptual phenomenon. These results indicate that following adaptation, activity in MT+ is pronounced only with the presentation of an appropriate visual stimulus, during which the MAE is perceived.
Where do we perceive an object to be when it is moving? Nijhawan [1] has reported that if a stationary test pattern is briefly flashed in spatial alignment with a moving one, the moving element actually appears displaced in the direction in which it is moving. Nijhawan postulates that this may be the result of a mechanism that predicts the future position of the moving element so as to compensate for the fact that the element will have moved position from the time at which the light left it to the time at which the observer becomes aware of it (as a result of the finite time taken for neural transmission). There is an alternative explanation of this effect, however. Changes in the stimulus presentation could affect perceptual latency [2], and therefore the perceived position if in motion (as suggested for the Pulfrich pendulum effect [3] [4]). In other words, if the flashed probe of the Nijhawan demonstration takes longer to reach perceptual awareness than the moving stimulus, the latter will appear to be ahead of the probe. Here, I demonstrate an alternative way of testing this hypothesis. When an illusory movement is induced (via the motion aftereffect) within a stationary pattern, it can be shown that this also produces a change in its perceived spatial position. As the pattern is stationary, one cannot account for this result via the notion of perceptual lags.
In two sessions, separated by 7 days, subjects imagined themselves performing a tracking task under a massed practice schedule. After conditions of interpolated rest and no-rest, which were counterbalanced across sessions, subjects actually performed the tracking task. During imagery practice, subjects verbally reported the temporal component of the task. The temporal accuracy of verbal reports varied widely across subjects, but not within subjects. Furthermore, a performance gain was demonstrated as a function of interpolated rest versus no-rest (reminiscence effect). Finally, the accuracy of verbal reports predicted imagery aftereffects, but not reminiscence effects.