Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues

Andrew Schofield, T Ledgway, CV Hutchinson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Recent work on motion processing has suggested a distinction between first-order cues (such as luminance modulation [LM]) and second-order cues (such as local contrast modulation [CM]). We studied interactions between moving LM, CM, and orientation modulation (OM) first comparing their spatial- and temporal-frequency sensitivity. We then tested for the transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect (dMAE) between the three cues, matched for visibility. Observers adapted to moving, 0.5-c/deg horizontal modulations for 2 min (with 10 s top-ups). Relatively strong dMAEs were found when the adaptation and test patterns were defined by the same cue (i.e., both LM, both CM, or both OM); these effects were tuned for spatial frequency in the case of LM and CM. There was a partial transfer of the dMAE from LM to CM and OM; this transferred effect seemed to lose its tuning. The aftereffect transferred well from CM to OM and retained its tuning. There was little or no transfer from CM to LM or from OM to CM or LM. This asymmetric transfer of the dMAE between first- and second-order cues and between the second-order cues suggests some degree of separation between the mechanisms that process them.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Vision
Volume7
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2007

Fingerprint

Cues
Transfer (Psychology)

Bibliographical note

Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License

Keywords

  • first order
  • contrast
  • orientation
  • aftereffect
  • luminance
  • second order
  • motion

Cite this

@article{5129afa82f9b48f6b25fec0af13562fd,
title = "Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues",
abstract = "Recent work on motion processing has suggested a distinction between first-order cues (such as luminance modulation [LM]) and second-order cues (such as local contrast modulation [CM]). We studied interactions between moving LM, CM, and orientation modulation (OM) first comparing their spatial- and temporal-frequency sensitivity. We then tested for the transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect (dMAE) between the three cues, matched for visibility. Observers adapted to moving, 0.5-c/deg horizontal modulations for 2 min (with 10 s top-ups). Relatively strong dMAEs were found when the adaptation and test patterns were defined by the same cue (i.e., both LM, both CM, or both OM); these effects were tuned for spatial frequency in the case of LM and CM. There was a partial transfer of the dMAE from LM to CM and OM; this transferred effect seemed to lose its tuning. The aftereffect transferred well from CM to OM and retained its tuning. There was little or no transfer from CM to LM or from OM to CM or LM. This asymmetric transfer of the dMAE between first- and second-order cues and between the second-order cues suggests some degree of separation between the mechanisms that process them.",
keywords = "first order, contrast, orientation, aftereffect, luminance, second order, motion",
author = "Andrew Schofield and T Ledgway and CV Hutchinson",
note = "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1167/7.8.1",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "Journal of Vision",
issn = "1534-7362",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "8",

}

Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues. / Schofield, Andrew; Ledgway, T; Hutchinson, CV.

In: Journal of Vision, Vol. 7, No. 8, 01.01.2007, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues

AU - Schofield, Andrew

AU - Ledgway, T

AU - Hutchinson, CV

N1 - Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License

PY - 2007/1/1

Y1 - 2007/1/1

N2 - Recent work on motion processing has suggested a distinction between first-order cues (such as luminance modulation [LM]) and second-order cues (such as local contrast modulation [CM]). We studied interactions between moving LM, CM, and orientation modulation (OM) first comparing their spatial- and temporal-frequency sensitivity. We then tested for the transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect (dMAE) between the three cues, matched for visibility. Observers adapted to moving, 0.5-c/deg horizontal modulations for 2 min (with 10 s top-ups). Relatively strong dMAEs were found when the adaptation and test patterns were defined by the same cue (i.e., both LM, both CM, or both OM); these effects were tuned for spatial frequency in the case of LM and CM. There was a partial transfer of the dMAE from LM to CM and OM; this transferred effect seemed to lose its tuning. The aftereffect transferred well from CM to OM and retained its tuning. There was little or no transfer from CM to LM or from OM to CM or LM. This asymmetric transfer of the dMAE between first- and second-order cues and between the second-order cues suggests some degree of separation between the mechanisms that process them.

AB - Recent work on motion processing has suggested a distinction between first-order cues (such as luminance modulation [LM]) and second-order cues (such as local contrast modulation [CM]). We studied interactions between moving LM, CM, and orientation modulation (OM) first comparing their spatial- and temporal-frequency sensitivity. We then tested for the transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect (dMAE) between the three cues, matched for visibility. Observers adapted to moving, 0.5-c/deg horizontal modulations for 2 min (with 10 s top-ups). Relatively strong dMAEs were found when the adaptation and test patterns were defined by the same cue (i.e., both LM, both CM, or both OM); these effects were tuned for spatial frequency in the case of LM and CM. There was a partial transfer of the dMAE from LM to CM and OM; this transferred effect seemed to lose its tuning. The aftereffect transferred well from CM to OM and retained its tuning. There was little or no transfer from CM to LM or from OM to CM or LM. This asymmetric transfer of the dMAE between first- and second-order cues and between the second-order cues suggests some degree of separation between the mechanisms that process them.

KW - first order

KW - contrast

KW - orientation

KW - aftereffect

KW - luminance

KW - second order

KW - motion

U2 - 10.1167/7.8.1

DO - 10.1167/7.8.1

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Journal of Vision

JF - Journal of Vision

SN - 1534-7362

IS - 8

ER -