Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Duration and intensity of the SAE were judged under five conditions: Angle Constant (A)—retinal speed and visual angle were held constant across several spiral-size, viewing-distance combinations; Size-Constant—a single spiral size was used at several distances, with retinal speed either varied (S₁) or held constant (S₂); Distance Constant—several spiral sizes were used at a constant distance with retinal speed either varied (D₁) or held constant (D₂). Duration and intensity measures were affected similarly, with perceptual rather than physical variables seeming to account for the results. Assuming that perfect size constancy occurred during the experiment, SAE durations were longer, in general, for larger values of perceived size per unit of retinal size. Retinal speed variation had no apparent influence, except possibly at low values.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Collins

W. E.

, & Schroeder

D. J.

Some effects of changes in spiral size and viewing distance on the duration of the spiral aftereffect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 119–126.

Costello

C. C.

Further observations on the spiral after-effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1960, 11, 324.

Fozard

J. L.

Fuchs

Palmer

, & Smith

A. M.

Effect of combinations of six presentation conditions on the duration of the spiral aftereffect. U. S. Government R&D Report, AD-623-976 (Dec.), 1965.

Freud

S. L.

Duration of spiral aftereffect as a function of retinal size, retinal place, and hemi-retinal transfer. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1964, 18, 47–53.

Gogel

W. C.

Perception of depth from binocular disparity. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 67, 379–386.

Gogel

W. C.

, & Mershon

D. H.

The perception of size in a distorted room. Perception and Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 26–28.

Gogel

W. C.

, & Mershon

D. H.

Depth adjacency in simultaneous contrast. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 5, 13–17.

Gogel

W. E.

, & Mertens

H. W.

Perceived depth between familiar objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 77, 206–211.

Granit

Ueber eine Hemmung der Zapfenfunktion durch Staebchenerregung beim Bewegungsnachbild. Zeitschrift fuer Sinnesphysiologie, 1927, 58, 95–110.

10.

Granit

On inhibition in the after-effect of seen movement. British Journal of Psychology, 1928, 19, 147–157.

11.

Hildt

M. T.

, & Van Liere

D. E.

Influence of test figure depth cues on the spiral aftereffect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20, 392.

12.

Holland

H. C.

Some determinants of seen aftermovements in the Archimedes spiral. Acta Psychologica (Amsterdam), 1958, 14, 215–222.

13.

Holland

H. C.

The spiral after-effect. Vol. 2. International series of monographs in experimental psychology. New York: Pergamon Press, 1965.

14.

McKenzie

R. E.

, & Hartman

B. O.

The effects of size, speed, and inspection time on the duration of the spiral aftereffect. USAF SAM. Report, No. 62-13, Brooks AFB, Texas, 1961.

15.

Pickersgill

M. J.

, & Jeeves

M. A.

After-effect of movement produced by a rotating spiral. Nature, 1958, 182, 1820.

16.

Scott

T. R.

Summary of principal findings on a visual aftereffect of motion and brain pathology. Newsletter for Research in Psychology, 1962 (Aug.), 38-46.

17.

Scott

T. R.

, & Noland

J. H.

Some stimulus dimensions of rotating spirals. Psychological Review, 1965, 72, 344–357.

18.

Wohlgemuth

On the after-effect of seen movement. British Journal of Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 1911, 1, 1–117.

Some Influences of Visual Angle and Retinal Speed on Measures of the Spiral Aftereffect

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References