Purchase this article with an account.
Andrew J. Schofield, Timothy Ledgeway, Claire V. Hutchinson; Asymmetric transfer of the dynamic motion aftereffect between first- and second-order cues and among different second-order cues. Journal of Vision 2007;7(8):1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/7.8.1.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
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.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only