After Effect of Seen Movement: Evidence for Peripheral and Central Components

Abstract

Three experiments showed that the movement after-effect (MAE) contains both peripheral and central components. In Experiment I, the left eye viewed a sectored disc rotating to the left, and the right eye viewed a disc rotating to the right, on corresponding retinal areas. Result: when each eye in turn then viewed a stationary disc, the left eye saw a MAE to the right, and the right eye a MAE to the left. These MAE_s must be peripheral.

In Experiment II, it was arranged that the movement information was shared out between the eyes, using a ring of lights which were switched on and off to give rotating phi movement. It was arranged that each eye on its own saw a random flashing oscillation but the two eyes together saw rotation anticlockwise. Result: a clockwise MAE was seen, which must be central.

In Experiment III, the switching programme was modified to arrange that now each eye on its own saw rotation clockwise, but the two eyes together saw rotation anticlockwise. Result: a clockwise MAE was seen, which must be central. (Peripheral MAE_s from each eye on its own would have been anticlockwise.)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ammons

C. H.

Weitz

(1951). Central and peripheral factors in the phi-phenomenon. J. exp. Psychol 42, 327–32.

Anstis

S. M.

(1964). After-effect of seen motion: transfer from rods to cones and vice versa. Nature, Lond 201, 4922952.

Anstis

S. M.

(1974). Generation of a spiral after-effect by interaction of rods and cones. Nature, Lond 206, 4988, 1069-70.

Anstis

S. M.

Gregory

R. L.

(1964). The after-effect of seen motion: the role of retinal stimulation and of eye movements. Q. Jl exp. Psychol 17, 20 173–4.

Barlow

H. B.

Brindley

G. S.

(1963). Interocular transfer of movement after-effects during pressure blinding of the stimulated eye. Nature, Lond 200, 1347.

Durup

(1928). Le probleme des impressions de mouvement consecutives d'ordre visual. Annee psychol 29, 1–56.

Freud

(1964). The physiological locus of the spiral after-effect. Am. J. Psychol 77, 3 422–8.

Gengerelli

J. A.

(1948). Apparent movement in relation to homonymous and heteronymous stimulation of the cerebral hemispheres. J. exp. Psychol 38, 592–9.

Von Helmholtz

(1924). Treatise on Physiological Optics Southall

J. P. C.

U.S.A.: Optical Society of America 3.

10.

Holland

H. C.

(1957). The Archimedes spiral. Nature, Lond 179, 432.

11.

Hunter

W. S.

(1914). The after-effect of visual motion. Psychol. Rev. 21, 245–77.

12.

Julesz

(1965). Texture and Visual Perception. Scient. Am 212, 2 38–48.

13.

Kolers

P. A.

(1963). Some differences between real and apparent visual movement. Vision Res. 3, 191–206.

14.

Newton

Sir Isaac

(1691). Letter to Locke. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton Turnbull

H. W.

Royal Society: Cambridge University Press III, 152–4.

15.

Papert

(1964). M.I.T. Q. Progr. Rep (15 April).

16.

Pickersgill

M. J.

Jeeves

M. A.

(1964). The origin of the after-effect of movement. Q. Jl exp. Psychol 16, 2 90–103.

17.

Scott

T. R.

Wood

D. Z.

(1966). Retinal anoxia and the locus of the after effect of motion. Am. J. Psychol. 79, 3 435–442.

18.

Smith

K. R.

(1948). Visual apparent movement in the absence of neural interaction. Am. J. Psychol 13, 168–72.

19.

Wohlgemuth

(1911). On the after-effect of seen movement. Br. J. Psychol. Monogr uppl. I.