Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 224, Issue 2, pp 165–178 | Cite as

Limited interaction between translation and visual motion aftereffects in humans

Research Article

Abstract

After exposure to a moving sensory stimulus, subsequent perception is often biased in the opposite direction. This phenomenon, known as an aftereffect, has been extensively studied for optic flow stimuli where it is known as the visual motion aftereffect (MAE). Such visual motion can also generate the sensation of self-motion or vection. It has recently been demonstrated that fore-aft translation in darkness also produces an aftereffect. The current study examines the interaction between visual MAE and vestibular translation aftereffects. Human subjects participated in a two-interval experiment in which the first interval (adapter) was visual, translation, or both combined congruently or in conflict. Subjects identified the direction of the second (test) interval of either visual or translation using a forced-choice technique. The translation adapter had no influence on visual test stimulus perception, and the visual adapter did not influence vestibular test stimulus perception in any subjects. However, congruent visual and translation induced a significantly larger perceptual bias on the translation test stimulus than was observed for a translation only adapter. The congruent adapter caused the MAE to be diminished relative to a visual only adapter. Conflicting visual and vestibular adapters produced an aftereffect similar to that seen when the single adapting stimulus was the same modality as the test stimulus. These results suggest that unlike visual and translation stimuli whose combined influence on perception can be predicted based on the effects of each stimulus individually, the effects of combined visual and translation stimuli on aftereffects cannot be predicted from the influences of each stimulus individually.

Keywords

Motion aftereffect Perception Vestibular Otolith Multisensory Otolaryngology Psychophysics Vection 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders K23 DC011298. Additional support was provided by a clinician scientist grant from the Triological Society. Technical support was provided by Shawn Olmstead-Leahey.

References

  1. Addams R (1834) An account of a peculiar optical phenomenon seen after having looked at a moving body etc. Mag J Sci 5:373–374 (3rd series)Google Scholar
  2. Andersen GJ, Braunstein ML (1985) Induced self-motion in central vision. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 11:122–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelaki DE, Gu Y, Deangelis GC (2009) Multisensory integration: psychophysics, neurophysiology, and computation. Curr Opin Neurobiol 19:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anstis SM, Gregory RL (1965) The after-effect of seen motion: the role of retinal stimulation and of eye movement. Q J Exp Psychol 17:173–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anstis S, Verstraten FA, Mather G (1998) The motion aftereffect. Trends Cognit Sci 2:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashida H, Lingnau A, Wall MB, Smith AT (2007) FMRI adaptation reveals separate mechanisms for first-order and second-order motion. J Neurophysiol 97:1319–1325. doi:10.1152/jn.00723.2006 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benson AJ, Spencer MB, Stott JR (1986) Thresholds for the detection of the direction of whole-body, linear movement in the horizontal plane. Aviat Space Environ Med 57:1088–1096PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bex PJ, Verstraten FA, Mareschal I (1996) Temporal and spatial frequency tuning of the flicker motion aftereffect. Vis Res 36:2721–2727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandt T, Dichgans J, Koenig E (1973) Differential effects of central verses peripheral vision on egocentric and exocentric motion perception. Exp Brain Res 16:476–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brandt T, Dichgans J, Buchle W (1974) Motion habituation: inverted self-motion perception and optokinetic after-nystagmus. Exp Brain Res 21:337–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Britten KH, van Wezel RJ (1998) Electrical microstimulation of cortical area MST biases heading perception in monkeys. Nat Neurosci 1:59–63. doi:10.1038/259 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bubka A, Bonato F, Palmisano S (2008) Expanding and contracting optic-flow patterns and vection. Perception 37:704–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cameron EL, Baker CL Jr, Boulton JC (1992) Spatial frequency selective mechanisms underlying the motion aftereffect. Vis Res 32:561–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carlson VR (1962) Adaptation in the perception of visual velocity. J Exp Psychol 64:192–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crane BT (2012) Fore-aft translation aftereffects. Exp Brain Res 219:477–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Culham JC, Verstraten FA, Ashida H, Cavanagh P (2000) Independent aftereffects of attention and motion. Neuron 28:607–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ernst MO, Banks MS (2002) Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature 415:429–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fetsch CR, Turner AH, Deangelis GC, Angelaki DE (2009) Dynamic re-weighting of visual and vestibular cues during self-motion perception. J Neurosci 29:15601–15612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fetsch CR, Pouget A, DeAngelis GC, Angelaki DE (2012) Neural correlates of reliability-based cue weighting during multisensory integration. Nat Neurosci 15:146–154. doi:10.1038/nn.2983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer MH, Kornmuller AE (1930) Optokinetic ausgeloste bewegungs-wahrnehmungen und optokinetinetisher nystagmus. J Psychol Neurol (Leipzig) 41:273–308Google Scholar
  21. Gianna CC, Heimbrand S, Nakamura T, Gresty MA (1995) Thresholds for perception of lateral motion in normal subjects and patients with bilateral loss of vestibular function. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 520(Pt 2):343–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson JJ (1950) The perception of the visual world. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldstein AG (1957) Judgments of visual velocity as a function of length of observation time. J Exp Psychol 54:457–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gu Y, Angelaki DE, Deangelis GC (2008) Neural correlates of multisensory cue integration in macaque MSTd. Nat Neurosci 11:1201–1210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gu Y, Fetsch CR, Adeyemo B, Deangelis GC, Angelaki DE (2010) Decoding of MSTd population activity accounts for variations in the precision of heading perception. Neuron 66:596–609. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.04.026 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris LR, Morgan MJ, Still AW (1981) Moving and the motion after-effect. Nature 293:139–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hiris E, Blake R (1992) Another perspective on the visual motion aftereffect. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 89:9025–9028PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johansson G (1977) Studies on visual perception of locomotion. Perception 6:365–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kanai R, Verstraten FA (2005) Perceptual manifestations of fast neural plasticity: motion priming, rapid motion aftereffect and perceptual sensitization. Vis Res 45:3109–3116. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.05.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacNeilage PR, Banks MS, DeAngelis GC, Angelaki DE (2010) Vestibular heading discrimination and sensitivity to linear acceleration in head and world coordinates. J Neurosci 30:9084–9094. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1304-10.2010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mather G, Moulden B (1980) A simultaneous shift in apparent direction: further evidence for a “distribution-shift” model of direction coding. Q J Exp Psychol 32:325–333. doi:10.1080/14640748008401168 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mather G, Pavan A, Campana G, Casco C (2008) The motion aftereffect reloaded. Trends Cognit Sci 12:481–487. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Melcher GA, Henn V (1981) The latency of circular vection during different accelerations of the optokinetic stimulus. Percept Psychophys 30:552–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moulden B (1980) After-effects and the integration of patterns of neural activity within a channel. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 290:39–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nishida S, Sato T (1995) Motion aftereffect with flickering test patterns reveals higher stages of motion processing. Vis Res 35:477–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ohmi M, Howard IP (1988) Effect of stationary objects on illusory forward self-motion induced by a looming display. Perception 17:5–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Page WK, Duffy CJ (2003) Heading representation in MST: sensory interactions and population encoding. J Neurophysiol 89:1994–2013. doi:10.1152/jn.00493.2002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roditi RE, Crane BT (2012) Directional asymmetries and age effects in human self-motion perception. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 13:381–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sato Y, Toyoizumi T, Aihara K (2007) Bayesian inference explains perception of unity and ventriloquism aftereffect: identification of common sources of audiovisual stimuli. Neural Comput 19:3335–3355. doi:10.1162/neco.2007.19.12.3335 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seno T, Ito H, Sunaga S (2010) Vection aftereffects from expanding/contracting stimuli. See Perceiving 23:273–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shimozaki SS, Schoonveld WA, Eckstein MP (2012) A unified Bayesian observer analysis for set size and cueing effects on perceptual decisions and saccades. J Vis 12. doi: 10.1167/12.6.27
  42. Soyka F, Robuffo Giordano P, Beykirch K, Bulthoff HH (2011) Predicting direction detection thresholds for arbitrary translational acceleration profiles in the horizontal plane. Experimental brain research. Experimentelle Hirnforschung. Exp Cerebrale 209:95–107. doi:10.1007/s00221-010-2523-9 Google Scholar
  43. Teixeira RA, Lackner JR (1979) Optokinetic motion sickness: attenuation of visually-induced apparent self-rotation by passive head movements. Aviat Space Environ Med 50:264–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Thompson P, Burr D (2009) Visual aftereffects. Curr Biol 19:R11–R14. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valko Y, Lewis RF, Priesol AJ, Merfeld DM (2012) Vestibular labyrinth contributions to human whole-body motion discrimination. J Neurosci 32:13537–13542. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2157-12.2012 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verstraten FA, Fredericksen RE, van de Grind WA (1994) Movement aftereffect of bi-vectorial transparent motion. Vis Res 34:349–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wade NJ, Swanston MT, de Weert CM (1993) On interocular transfer of motion aftereffects. Perception 22:1365–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wallach H, Flaherty EW (1975) A compensation for field expansion caused by moving forward. Percept Psychophys 17:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Walsh EG (1961) Role of the vestibular apparatus in the perception of motion on a parallel swing. J Physiol 155:506–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001a) The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001b) The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Percept Psychophys 63:1314–1329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wong SC, Frost BJ (1981) The effect of visual-vestibular conflict on the latency of steady-state visually induced subjective rotation. Percept Psychophys 30:228–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wozny DR, Shams L (2011) Computational characterization of visually induced auditory spatial adaptation. Front Integr Neurosci 5:75. doi:10.3389/fnint.2011.00075 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OtolaryngologyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of Neurobiology and AnatomyUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations