Movement adaptation in the peripheral retina
Reference (19)
- et al.
The influence of spatial frequency and contrast on the perception of moving patterns
Vision Res.
(1981) - et al.
A model for aftereffects of seen movement
Vision Res.
(1967) - et al.
Motion processing in peripheral vision: reaction time and perceived velocity
Vision Res.
(1982) - et al.
Local adaptation
- et al.
Evidence for a physiological explanation of the waterfall phenomenon and figural aftereffects
Nature
(1963) - et al.
Stopped visual motion
Nature
(1979) Adaptation effects and aftereffects of moving patterns viewed in the periphery of the visual field
Scand. J. Psychol.
(1965)Motion perception in the peripheral visual field
Perception
(1982)- et al.
The role of drifts and saccades for the preservation of brightness perception
Cited by (60)
Speed change detection in foveal and peripheral vision
2012, Vision ResearchCitation Excerpt :This gap in the literature is surprising, as many aspects of motion perception have been shown to deteriorate with eccentricity, e.g. absolute motion thresholds (Tynan & Sekuler, 1982) or speed discrimination (McKee & Nakayama, 1984; Orban et al., 1985). In addition, absolute motion is perceived slower under peripheral compared to foveal viewing conditions (Brown, 1931; Diener et al., 1976; Johnston & Wright, 1986; Tynan & Sekuler, 1982), and constantly moving stimuli in the periphery appear to decelerate or even stop within a viewing time of less than a second (Campbell & Maffei, 1979, 1981; Cohen, 1965; Hunzelmann & Spillmann, 1984; Lichtenstein, 1963; MacKay, 1982; Runeson, 1974). Interestingly, it has never been explored how these perceptual effects relate to adaptational processes and how they interfere with the detection or discrimination of physical motion.
Motion fading is driven by perceived, not actual angular velocity
2010, Vision ResearchPeripheral fading with monocular and binocular viewing
2007, Vision ResearchChapter 6 In honour of Lothar Spillmann - filling-in, wiggly lines, adaptation, and aftereffects
2006, Progress in Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :Changing (i.e., flickering or moving) targets are more resistant than static targets to disappearing. This does not mean that flickering or moving objects are a proof against disappearance: they are not (Campbell and Maffei, 1981; Hunzelmann and Spillmann, 1984; Schieting and Spillmann, 1987; Anstis, 1996). It merely means that statistically they are less likely to disappear.
The spatial grain of motion perception in human peripheral vision
1996, Vision Research
Supported by Sonderforschungsbereich 70, Teilprojekt A6.
Part of this work was presented at the Fall-Meeting of the German Physiological Society in Gieβen, 1982; and at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology in Sarasota, Florida, 1983.