Linking hypotheses underlying Class A and Class B methods

Visual Neuroscience

Volumn 30, Issue 5-6, 2013, Pages 197-206

  Morgan, M J ^a,b   Melmoth, D ^b   Solomon, J A ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR NEUROLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

2AFC; Linking hypotheses; Method of single stimuli; Psychophysics

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MOTION; MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVE FORCED CHOICE; OBSERVER BIAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

HUMANS; ILLUSIONS; MOTION PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS;

EID: 84896539276     PISSN: 09525238     EISSN: 14698714     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S095252381300045X     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. BECK, D.M., REES, G., FRITH, C.D. & LAVIE, N. (2001). Neural correlates of change detection and change blindness. Nature Neuroscience 4, 645-650.
2. BLACKWELL, H.R. (1952). Studies of psychophysical methods for measuring visual thresholds. Journal of the Optical Society of America 42, 606-616.
3. BRINDLEY, G.S. (1960). Physiology of the Retina and Visual Pathway. London: Edward Arnold.
4. CHAUDHURI, A. (1990a). Modulation of the motion aftereffect by selective attention. Nature 344, 60-62.
5. CHAUDHURI, A. (1990b). A motion illusion generated by afternystagmus suppression. Neuroscience Letters 118, 91-95.
6. CHUBB, C, SPERLING, G. & SOLOMON, J.A. (1989). Texture interactions determine perceived contrast. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86, 9631-9635.
7. DE VALOIS, R.L. & DE VALOIS, K.K. (1991). Vernier acuity with stationary moving Gabors. Vision Research 31, 1619-1626.
8. DILORENZO, J.R. & ROCK, I. (1982). The rod-and-frame effect as a function of the righting of the frame. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 8, 536-546.
9. DYDE, R. & MILNER, A. (2002). Two illusions of perceived orientation: One fools all of the people some the time; the other fools all of the people all of the time. Experimental Brain Research 144, 518-527.
10. FRANZ, V.H. (2001). Action does not resist visual illusions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5, 457-459.
11. FRANZ, V.H., FAHLE, M., BULTHOFF, H. & GEGENFURTNER, K. (2001). Effects of visual illusions on grasping. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 27, 1124-1144.
12. GARCÍA-PÉREZ, M. & ALCALÁ-QUINTANA, R. (2012). Shifts of the psychometric function: Distinguishing bias from perceptual effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1-19. doi:10.1080/ 17470218.2012. 708761.
13. GEORGIADES, M. & HARRIS, J. (2002). Evidence for spatio-temporal selectivity in attentional modulation of the motion aftereffect. Spatial Vision 16, 21-31.
14. GHEORGHIU, E., KINGDOM, F.A., BELL, J. & GURNSEY, R. (2011). Why do shape aftereffects increase with eccentricity? Journal of Vision 11, 1-28. doi: 10.1167/11.14.18.
15. GLOVER, S. & DIXON, P. (2002). Dynamic effects of the Ebbinghaus illusion in grasping: Support for a planning/control model of action. Perception & Psychophysics 64, 266-278.
16. GOODALE, M.A. & MILNER, A.D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and action. Trends in Neurosciences 15, 20-25.
17. GREEN, D.M. & SWETS, J.A. (1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.
18. HAWKEN, M.J. & PARKER, A.J. (1987). Spatial properties of neurons in the monkey striate cortex. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 231, 251-288.
19. HAYES, A. (2000). Apparent position governs contour-element binding by the visual system. Proceedings. Biological Sciences/The Royal Society 267, 1341-1345. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1148.
20. JAKEL, F. & WICHMANN, F.A. (2006). Spatial four-alternative forced-choice method is the preferred psychophysical method for naive observers. Journal of Vision 6, 1307-1322. doi: 10.1167/6.11.13.
21. KNAPEN, T., ROLFS, M. & CAVANAGH, P. (2009). The reference frame of the motion aftereffect is retinotopic. Journal of Vision 9, 1-13.
22. MCGRAW, P.V., WHITAKER, D., SKILLEN, J. & CHUNG, S.T. (2002). Motion adaptation distorts perceived visual position. Current Biology: CB 12, 2042-2047.
23. MOLLON, J.D. (1986). Walter Stanley Stiles 1901-1985. An obituary. Perception 15, 657-666.
24. MORGAN, M. (1999). The Poggendorff illusion: A bias in the estimation of the orientation of virtual lines by the human visual system. Vision Research 39, 2361-2380.
25. MORGAN, M. (2003). The Space Between Our Ears. London: Weidenfled & Nicholson.
26. MORGAN, M., DILLENBURGER, B., RAPHAEL, S. & SOLOMON, J.A. (2012). Observers can voluntarily shift their psychometric functions without losing sensitivity. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics 74, 185-193. doi: 10.3758/s13414-011-0222-7.
27. MORGAN, M.J. (1996). Visual illusions. In Unsolved Mysteries of the Mind, ed. BRUCE, V. Hove: Earlbaum.
28. MORGAN, M.J. (2011). Wohlgemuth was right: Distracting attention from the adapting stimulus does not decrease the motion after-effect. Vision Research 51, 2169-2175. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.07.018.
29. MORGAN, M.J. (2013a). A bias-free measure of retinotopic tilt adaptation. Journal of Vision. In press.
30. MORGAN, M.J. (2013b). Sustained attention is not necessary for velocity adaptation. Journal of Vision 13, 26, 1-11.
31. NEWSOME, W.T., BRITTEN, K.H. & MOVSHON, J.A. (1989). Neuronal correlates of a perceptual decision. Nature 341, 52-54.
32. NISHIDA, S. & ASHIDA, H. (2000). A hierarchical structure of motion system revealed by interocular transfer of flicker motion aftereffects. Vision Research 40, 265-278.
33. PARKER, A. & HAWKEN, M. (1985). Capabilities of monkey cortical cells in spatial resolution tasks. Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, Image Science, and Vision 2, 1101-1114.
34. RAMACHANDRAN, V.S. & ANSTIS, S.M. (1990). Illusory displacement of equiluminous kinetic edges. Perception 19, 611-616.
35. REES, G., FRITH, C. & LAVIE, N. (2001). Processing of irrelevant visual motion during performance of an auditory attention task. Neuropsychologia 39, 937-949.
36. REZEC, A., KREKELBERG, B. & DOBKINS, K.R. (2004). Attention enhances adaptability: Evidence from motion adaptation experiments. Vision Research 44, 3035-3044.
37. ROLFS, M., KNAPEN, T. & CAVANAGH, P. (2010). Global saccadic adaptation. Vision Research 50, 1882-1890.
38. SINHA, D. (1952). A experimental study of a social factor in perception: The influence of an arbitrary group standard. Patna University Journal 7-16.
39. SPERLING, G., DOSHER, B.A. & LANDY, M.S. (1990). How to study the kinetic depth effect experimentally. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 16, 445-450.
40. SPINELLI, D., ANTONUCCI, G., DAINI, R. & ZOCCOLOTTI, P. (1995). Local and global visual mechanisms underlying individual differences in the rod-and-frame illusion. Perception & Psychophysics 57, 915-920.
41. TAYA S, ADAMS, W., GRAF, E. & LAVIE, N. (2009). The fate of task-irrelevant visual motion: Perceptual load versus feature-based attention. Journal of Vision 9, 1-10.
42. TELLER, D.Y. & PUGH, E.N.J. (1983). Linking propositions in color vision. In Colour Vision: Physiology and Psychophysics, ed. MOLLON, J.D. and SHARPE, L.T. London: Academic Press.
43. TURI, M. & BURR, D. (2012). Spatiotopic perceptual maps in humans: Evidence from motion adaptation. Proceedings. Biological Sciences/The Royal Society 279, 3091-3097. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0637.
44. WINAWER, J., HUK, A.C. & BORODITSKY, L. (2010). A motion aftereffect from visual imagery of motion. Cognition 114, 276-284.
45. WOHLGEMUTH, A. (1911). On the aftereffect of seen movement. British Journal of Psychology (Monograph Supplement) 1, 1-117.
46. ZIMMERMANN, E., MORRONE, M.C., FINK, G.R. & BURR, D. (2013). Spatiotopic neural representations develop slowly across saccades. Current Biology: CB 23, R193-R194. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.065.