Effects of Exposure to Spatially Distorted Stimuli

  • I. P. Howard
Part of the Perception and Perceptual Development book series (PPD, volume 1)


The successful execution of most pieces of behavior requires that the animal correctly perceive the positions and movements of its own body parts and the positions and movements of external objects. Many spatial skills are so vital that they are innately determined, or require very little experience for their development. For instance, the wildebeest is able to run after its mother within hours of being born, and most mammals avoid the edges of cliffs that they can see, even when they encounter them for the first time. Nevertheless, whether particular spatial perceptual mechanisms are innate or not, they possess a degree of flexibility; i.e., they may be temporarily, or permanently, modified by experience. Such flexibility is required to correct for the changes that occur when an animal grows, is injured, or encounters unusual types of stimulation. It is also required to correct for the tendency of any complex system to drift from its peak performance.


Visual Target Retinal Image Binocular Disparity Visuomotor Adaptation Covariance Schema 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annis, R. C., and Frost, B. Human visual ecology and orientation anisotropics in acuity. Science, 1973, 182, 729–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelle, S. Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 78, 266–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E., and Witkin, H. A. Studies in space orientation. II. Perception of the upright with displaced visual fields and with body tilted. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1948, 38, 455–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baily, J. S. Arm-body adaptation with passive arm movements. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 72, 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow, H. B. Visual experience and cortical development. Nature, 1975, 258, 199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blakemore, C., and Cooper, G. Development of the brain depends on the visual environment. Nature, 1970, 228, 477–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bower, T. G. R. Development in infancy. San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, F. W., and Maffei, L. The tilt after-effect: A fresh look. Vision Research, 1971, 77, 833–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canon, L. K. Intermodality inconsistency of input and directed attention as determinants of the nature of adaptation. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1970, 84, 141–147.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, J. K. Isolation of the muscular component in a proprioceptive spatial aftereffect. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1911, 90, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coltheart, M. Visual feature-analyzers and aftereffects of tilt and curvature. Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 114–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coltheart, M., and Cooper, C. M. The retinal reference of the tilt aftereffect. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 11, 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, L. A. Demonstration of a mental analog of an external rotation. Perception and Psychophysics, 1976, 79, 296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coren, S. Adaptation to prismatic displacement as a function of the amount of available information. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 407–408.Google Scholar
  15. Craske, B. Adaptation to prisms: Change in internally registered eye-position. British Journal of Psychology, 1967, 55, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewar, R. Adaptation to displaced vision: Variations on the prismatic-shaping technique. Perception and Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 155–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ebenholtz, S. M., and Wolfson, D. M. Perceptual effects of sustained convergence. Perception and Psychophysics, 1975, 77, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epstein, W., and Morgan-Paap, C. A. The effect of level of depth processing and degree of informational discrepancy on adaptation to uniocular image magnification. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1974, 102, 585–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fiorentini, A., Ghez, C., and Maffei, L. Physiological correlates of adaptation to a rotated visual field. Journal of Physiology, 1972, 227, 313–322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher, G. H. Resolution of spatial conflict. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1962, 46, 3A.Google Scholar
  21. Gauthier, G. M., and Robinson, D. A. Adaptation of the human vestibuloocular reflex to magnifying lenses. Brain Research, 1975, 92, 331–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gregory, R. L. Eye and brain. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.Google Scholar
  23. Halper-Smith, C. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Stanford University, 1971.Google Scholar
  24. Hamilton, C. R. Intermanual transfer of adaptation to prisms. American Journal of Psychology, 1964, 77, 457–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hardt, M. E., Held, R., and Steinbach, M. J. Adaptation to displaced vision: A change in the central control of sensorimotor coordination. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1971, 89, 229–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, C. S. Perceptual adaptation to inverted, reversed, and displaced vision. Psychological Review, 1965, 72, 419–444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hay, J. C. Visual adaptation to an altered correlation between eye movement and head movement. Science, 1968, 160, 429–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hay, J. C., Pick, H. L., and Roser, E. Adaptation to chromatic aberration by the human visual system. Science, 1963, 141, 167–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hay, J. C., Pick, H. L., and Ikeda, K. Visual capture produced by prism spectacles. Psychonomic Science, 1965, 2, 215–216.Google Scholar
  30. Hein, A., and Held, R. A neural model for labile sensorimotor coordinations. In Biological prototypes and synthetic systems. Vol. I. New York: Plenum Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  31. Hein, A., Gower, E. C., and Diamond, R. H. Exposure requirements for developing the triggered component of the visual-placing response. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970a, 73, 188–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hein, A., Held, R., and Gower, E. C. Development and segmentation of visually controlled movement by selective exposure during rearing. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1970b, 73, 181–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Held, R. Exposure history as a factor in maintaining stability of perception and coordination. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1961, 132, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Held, R., and Hein, A. Adaptation of disarranged hand-eye coordination contingent upon re-afferent stimulation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1958, 8, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Held, R., and Hein, A. Movement-produced stimulation in the development of visually guided behaviour. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1963, 56, 872–876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howard, I. P. Displacing the optical array. In S. J. Freedman (Ed.), The neuropsychology of spatially oriented behavior. Homewood 111.: Dorsey, 1968, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
  37. Howard, I. P. Perceptual learning and adaptation. British Medical Bulletin, 1971, 27, 248–252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Howard, I. P. Proposals for the study of adaptation to anomalous schemata. Perception, 1975, 3, 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Howard, I. P., and Anstis, T. Muscular and joint-receptor components in postural persistence. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1914, 103, 167–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Howard, I. P., and Templeton, W. B. The effect of fixation on the judgment of relative depth. Quarterly Journal of experimental Psychology, 1964, 16, 193–203.Google Scholar
  41. Howard, I. P., and Templeton, W. B. Human spatial orientation. London: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  42. Howard, I. P., Craske, B., and Templeton, W. B. Visuo-motor adaptation to discordant ex-afferent stimulation. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 189–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howard, I. P., Anstis, T., and Lucia, H. C. The relative lability of mobile and stationary components in a visual-motor adaptation task. Quarterly Journal of experimental Psychology, 1974, 26, 293–300.Google Scholar
  44. Hubel, D. H., and Wiesel, T. N. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. Journal of Physiology, 1962, 160, 106–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Jackson, C. V. Visual factors in auditory localization. Quarterly Journal of experimental Psychology, 1953, 5, 52–65.Google Scholar
  46. Kelso, J. A., Cook, E., Olson, M. E., and Epstein, W. Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation to displaced vision. Journal of experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975, 104, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kennedy, J. M. Prismatic displacement and the remembered location of targets. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 218–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kohler, I. Experiments with prolonged optical distortions. Acta Psychologica, 1955, 11, 176–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kolers, P. A., and Perkins, D. N. Orientation of letters and errors in their recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kornhuber, H. H. (Ed.) Handbook of sensory physiology. Vol. VI, Part 1: Vestibular system. New York: Springer, 1974.Google Scholar
  51. Kottenhoff, H. Situational and personal influences on space perception with experimental spectacles. 1. Prolonged experiments with inverting glasses. Acta Psychologica, 1957, 13, 79–97, 370–405.Google Scholar
  52. Kottenhoff, H. Was ist richtiges Sehen mit Umkehrbrillen und in welchem Sinne stellt sich das Sehen uml Meisenheim am Glan, Germany: Anton Hain, 1961.Google Scholar
  53. Kravitz, J. H., and Wallach, H. Adaptation to displaced vision contingent upon vibrating stimulation. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 465–466.Google Scholar
  54. Lackner, J. R. Adaptation to displaced vision: Role of proprioception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 38, 1251–1256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leehey, S. C., Moskowitz-Cook, A., Brill, S., and Held, R. Orientational anistropy in infant vision. Science, 1975, 190, 900–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Leventhal, A. G., and Hirsch, H. V. Cortical effect of early selective exposure to diagonal lines. Science, 1975, 190, 902–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lewis, R. Cat’s brains are controversial. New Scientist, 1975, 20, 457–458.Google Scholar
  58. MacKay, D. M. Voluntary eye movements as questions. In J. Dichgans and E. Bizzi (Eds.), Cerebral control of eye movements and motion perception. Basel: Karger, 1972, pp. 369–376.Google Scholar
  59. McCall, W. D., Farias, M. C. Williams, W. J., and Bement, S. L. Static and dynamic responses of slowly adapting joint receptors. Brain Research, 1974, 70, 221–243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Melamed, L. E., Haley, M., and Gildow, J. W. Effect of external target presence on visual adaptation with active and passive movement. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1973, 98, 125–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Metzler, J., and Shepard, R. N. Transformational studies of the internal representation of three- dimensional objects. In R. Solso (Ed.), Theories of cognitive psychology. Potomac, Md.: Erl- baum, 1974.Google Scholar
  62. Miller, E. A. Interaction of vision and touch in conflict and nonconflict form perception tasks. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1972, 96, 114–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mitchell, D. E., Freeman, R. D., Millodot, M., and Haegerstrom, G. Meridional amblyopia: Evidence for modification of the human visual system by early experience. Visual Research, 1973, 13, 535–558.Google Scholar
  64. Moulden, B. Adaptation to displaced vision: Reafference is a special case of the cue-discrepancy hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of experimental Psychology, 1971, 25, 113–117.Google Scholar
  65. Mountcastle, V. B., Poggio, G. F., and Werner, G. The relation of thalamic cell response to peripheral stimuli varied over an intensive continuum. Journal of Neurophysiology, 1963, 26, 807–834.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Nielsen, T. I. Volition: A new experimental approach. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 4, 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ogle, K. N. Binocular vision. New York: Hafner, 1964.Google Scholar
  68. Over, R. An experimentally induced conflict between vision and proprioception. British Journal of Psychology, 1966, 57, 335–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pick, H. L., and Hay, J. C. A passive test of the Held reafference hypothesis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20, 1070–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pick, H. L., Warren, D. H., and Hay, J. C. Sensory conflicts in judgments of spatial direction. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 6, 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pick, H. L., Jr., Warren, D. H., Mclntyre, C., and Appel, L. Transfer and the organization of perceptual-motor space. Psycholgische Forschung, 1972, 35, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Radeau, M. The locus of adaptation to auditory-visual conflict. Perception, 1973, 2, 327–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Radeau, M. Differences in visual and auditory adaptation to prismatic displacement. Année Psychologique, 1974, 74, 23–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Radeau, M., and Bertelson, P. Adaptation à un déplacement prismatique sur la base de stimulations exafférentes en conflit. Psychologica Belgica, 1969, 9, 133–140.Google Scholar
  75. Radeau, M., and Bertelson, P. The effects of a textured visual field on modality dominance in a ventriloquism situation. Perception and Psychophysics, 1976, 20, 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rock, I. The nature of perceptual adaptation. New York: Basic Books, 1966.Google Scholar
  77. Rock, I. Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  78. Rock, I., and Victor, J. Vision and touch: An experimentally created conflict between the two senses. Science, 1964, 143, 594–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Skowbo, D., Timney, B. N., Gentry, T. A., and Morant, R. B. McCollough effects: Experimental findings and theoretical accounts. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 497–510.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Smith, K. U., and Smith, W. M. Perception and motion. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1962.Google Scholar
  81. Stratton, G. M. Vision without inversion of the retinal image. Psychological Review, 1897, 4, 341–363, 363–481.Google Scholar
  82. Taylor, J. G. The behavioral basis of perception. New York: Yale University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  83. Templeton, W. B., Howard, I. P., and Lowman, A. E. Passively generated adaptation to prismatic distortion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, 22, 140–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Templeton, W. B., Howard, I. P., and Wilkinson, D. A. Additivity of components of prismatic adaptation. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 75, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thurlow, W. R., and Jack, C. E. Certain determinants of the ventriloquism effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1973, 36, 1171–1184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Timney, B. N., and Muir, D. W. Orientation anisotrophy: Incidence and magnitude in Caucasian and Chinese subjects. Science, 1976, 193, 699–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Uhlarik, J. J. Role of cognitive factors on adaptation to prismatic displacement. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1973, 98, 223–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Uhlarik, J. J., and Canon, L. K. Influence of concurrent and terminal exposure conditions on the nature of perceptual adaptation. Journal of experimental Psychology,, 1971, 91, 233–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Van Laer, E. S., Swartz, A., and Van Laer, J. Adaptation to prismatically displaced vision as a function of degree of displacement and amount of feedback. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1970, 30, 723–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. von Hoist, E. Relations between the central nervous system and the peripheral organs. British Journal of Animal Behaviour, 1954, 2, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wallace, B. Preexposure pointing frequency effects on adaptation to prismatic viewing. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wallach, H., and Flaherty, E. W. Covariance as a principle in perceptual adaptation. Psychologia, 1974, 17, 159–165.Google Scholar
  93. Wallach, H., and Frey, K. J. Adaptation in distance perception based on oculomotor cues. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 77, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wallach, H., Stanton, L., and Becker, D. The compensation for movement-produced changes of object orientation. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 75, 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Welch, R. B. Adaptation to prism-displaced vision: The importance of target-pointing. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Welch, R. B. The effect of experienced limb identity upon adaptation to simulated displacement of the visual field. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 72, 453–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Welch, R. B., and Abel, M. R. The generality of the target-pointing effect in prism adaptation. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 20, 226–227.Google Scholar
  98. Wilkinson, D. A. The visual-motor control loops: A linear system? Journal of experimental Psychology, 1971, 59, 250–257. Willott, J. F. Perceptual judgments with discrepant information from audition and proprioception.Google Scholar
  99. Perception and Psychophysics, 1973, 14, 577–580.Google Scholar
  100. Witkin, H. A., Wapner, S., and Leventhal, T. Sound localization with conflicting visual and auditory cues. Journal of experimental Psychology, 1952, 43, 58–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. P. Howard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations