The tactile motion aftereffect revisited

Somatosensory and Motor Research

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 93-99

  Planetta, Peggy J ^a   Servos, Philip ^a  

^a WILFRID LAURIER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Motion perception; Perceptual aftereffect; Sensory adaptation; Tactual perception

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ILLUSION; MALE; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TACTILE STIMULATION; TOUCH;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ADULT; FEMALE; HAND; HUMANS; MALE; TOUCH;

EID: 45749110573     PISSN: 08990220     EISSN: 13691651     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08990220802045244     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Addams R. 1834. An account of a peculiar optical phenomenon seen after having looked at a moving body. London Edinburgh Phil Mag J Sci 5:373-374.
2. Dillon YK, Haynes J, Henneberg M. 2001. The relationship of the number of Meissner's corpuscles to dermatoglyphic characters and finger size. J Anat 199:577-584.
3. Essick GK, Edin BB. 1995. Receptor encoding of moving tactile stimuli in humans. II. The mean response of individual low-threshold mechanoreceptors to motion across the receptive field. J Neurosci 15:848-864.
4. Gardner EP, Palmer IC. 1989. Simulation of motion on the skin. I. Receptive fields and temporal frequency coding by cutaneous mechanoreceptors of Optacon pulses delivered to the hand. J Neurophysiol 63:1410-1436.
5. Gardner EP, Sklar BF. 1994. Discrimination of the direction of motion on the human hand: A psychophysical study of stimulation parameters. J Neurophysiol 71:2414-2419.
6. Greenspan JD, Bolanowski SJ. 1996. The psychophysics of tactile perception and its peripheral basis. In: Kruger L, editor. Handbook of perception and cognition, Vol. 7. Pain and touch. San Diego: Academic Press. pp 25-103.
7. Hazlewood V. 1971. A note on failure to find a tactile motion aftereffect. Aust J Psychol 23:59-62.
8. Hershenson M. 1989. Duration, time constant, and decay of the linear motion aftereffect as a function of inspection duration. Percept Psychophys 45:251-257.
9. Hershenson M. 1993. Linear and rotation aftereffects as a function of inspection duration. Vision Res 33:1913-1919.
10. Hollins M, Favorov O. 1994. The tactile movement aftereffect. Somatosens Mot Res 11:153-162.
11. Lerner EA, Craig JC. 2002. The prevalence of tactile motion aftereffects. Somatosens Mot Res 19:24-29.
12. Lindblom U. 1965. Properties of touch receptors in distal glabrous skin. J Neurophysiol 28:966-985.
13. Schimrigk K, Ruettinger H. 1980. The touch corpuscles of the palmar surface of the big toe. Histological and histometrical investigations with respect to age. Eur Neurol 19:49-60.
14. Srinivasan MA, Whitehouse JM, LaMotte RH. 1990. Tactile detection of slip: Surface microgeometry and peripheral neural codes. J Neurophysiol 63:1323-1332.
15. Thalman WA. 1922. The after-effect of movement in the sense of touch. Am J Psychol 33:268-276.
16. Thompson P. 1880. Optical illusions of motion. Brain 3:289-298.
17. Whitsel BL, Favorov OV, Kelly DG, Tommerdahl M. 1991. Mechanisms of dynamic peri- and intra-columnar interactions in somatosensory cortex: Stimulus-specific contrast enhancement by NMDA receptor activation. In: Franzen O, Westman J, editors. Information processing in the somatosensory system. New York: Stockton. pp 353-370.
18. Whitsel BL, Favorov OV, Tommerdahl M, Diamond M, Juliano S, Kelly DG. 1989. Dynamic processes govern the somatosensory cortical response to natural stimulation. In: Lund JS, editor. Sensory processing in the mammalian brain. New York: Oxford University Press. pp 84-116.
19. Wohlgemuth A. 1911. On the after-effect of seen movement. Br J Psychol Monogr Suppl 1:88-109.