Studies of the angular function of a Duncker-type induced motion illusion.

Duncker (1929/1955, Source Book of Gestalt Psychology, pp 161-172) demonstrated a laboratory version of induced motion. He showed that, when a stationary spot of light in a dark laboratory is enclosed in an oscillating rectangular frame, the frame is perceived as stationary and the dot appears to move in the direction opposite the true motion of the frame. Zivotofsky (2004, Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 45 2867-2872) studied a more complex variant of the Duncker illusion, in which both the inducing and the test stimuli moved: a single red test dot moved horizontally left or right while a dense background set of black dots on a white background moved vertically up or down.

The hierarchical order of processes underlying the direction illusion and the direction aftereffect.

Motion perception involves the processing of velocity signals through several hierarchical stages of the visual cortex. To better understand this process, a number of studies have sought to localise the neural substrates of two misperceptions of motion direction, the direction illusion (DI) and the direction aftereffect (DAE). These studies have produced contradictory evidence as to the hierarchical order of the processing stages from which the respective phenomena arise.

Challenging the distribution shift: statically-induced direction illusion implicates differential processing of object-relative and non-object-relative motion.

The direction illusion is the phenomenal exaggeration of the angle between the drift directions, typically, of two superimposed sets of random dots. The direction illusion is commonly attributed to mutual inhibition between direction-selective cell populations (distribution-shift model). A second explanation attributes the direction illusion to the differential processing of relative and non-relative motion components (differential processing model).

Tapered dipoles in briefly flashed glass-pattern sequences disambiguate perceived motion direction.

In order to investigate the relationship between 'neural speedlines', form (shape), and fast motion-direction decisions, Glass patterns were constructed with dipoles assuming a tapered shape. The results of a 2-alternative forced-choice direction-discrimination task, for both concentric and translational Glass-pattern sequences, suggest that with short stimulus presentations (< 1 s) form can influence direction decisions. This result implies that neural speedlines may be analogous to tapered lines and further supports Geisler's (1999, Nature 400 65-69) model of form/motion interaction.

Dichoptic reduction of the direction illusion is not due to binocular rivalry.

Simultaneous direction repulsion (the direction illusion) occurs in bidirectional motion displays, typically transparent motion random dot kinematograms. Several laboratories have reported a greatly reduced illusion with dichoptic presentation of the two coherently translating stimuli as compared to monocular or binocular presentation. Some researchers have argued that those results might be due to a confounding factor, namely binocular rivalry occurring between test and inducing stimuli in the dichoptic condition, and so have attributed decisive weight to the results reported by Kim and Wilson (1997, Vision Research, 37, 991-1005) who used centre-surround grating stimuli and found large monocular as well as large dichoptic effects.

Motion streaks in fast motion rivalry cause orientation-selective suppression.

We studied binocular rivalry between orthogonally translating arrays of random Gaussian blobs and measured the strength of rivalry suppression for static oriented probes. Suppression depth was quantified by expressing monocular probe thresholds during dominance relative to thresholds during suppression. Rivalry between two fast motions or two slow motions was compared in order to test the suggestion that fast-moving objects leave oriented "motion streaks" due to temporal integration (W.

What is the reference in reference repulsion?

Reference repulsion is a mechanism posited to explain systematic biases of direction judgment of single drifting dot displays (Rauber and Treue, 1998 Perception 27 393-402). Rauber and Treue obtained systematic but, surprisingly, very different effects depending upon whether standard and comparison stimuli were presented simultaneously or successively. Successive effects were described as exhibiting repulsion from both vertical and horizontal cardinal axes, whereas simultaneous effects showed repulsion from horizontal only.

Orientation illusions vary in size and direction as a function of task-dependent attention.

Adding an upright inner square frame to an outer tilted square frame causes a central rod's perceived orientation to be directionally opposite the usual rod-and-frame illusion (RFI). Zoccolotti, Antonucci, Daini, Martelli, and Spinelli (1997) attributed this double RFI (DRFI) to Rock's (1990) hierarchical organization principle. In Experiment 1, this explanation predicted results for small (11 degrees ) but not larger (22 degrees and 33 degrees ) outer frame orientations.

Retinotopic encoding of the direction aftereffect.

Kohn and Movshon [Kohn, A., & Movshon, J. (2003).

The different mechanisms of the motion direction illusion and aftereffect.

Direction repulsion is the illusory expansion of the angle between two directions of motion, and may occur when the two directions are presented simultaneously (an illusion) or successively (an aftereffect). Here we demonstrate that the motion direction illusion (DI) and aftereffect (DAE) have different mechanisms. Two experiments show that when the two interacting stimuli are presented to different eyes, the DI is greatly reduced but the DAE is obtained at near to full strength.

Testing the tilt-constancy theory of visual illusions.

Prinzmetal and Beck (2001) Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27 206 - 217) argued that a subset of visual illusions is caused by the same mechanisms that are responsible for the perception of vertical and horizontal a theory they referred to as the tilt-constancy theory of visual illusions. They argued that these illusions should increase if the observer's head or head and body are tilted because extra reliance would then be placed on the illusion-inducing local visual context. Exactly that result had previously been reported in the case of the tilted-room and the rod-and-frame illusions.

Contrast configuration influences grouping in apparent motion.

We investigated whether the same principles that influence grouping in static displays also influence grouping in apparent motion. Using the Ternus display, we found that the proportion of group motion reports was influenced by changes in contrast configuration. Subjects made judgments of completion of these same configurations in a static display.

Visual orientation illusions: global mechanisms involved in hierarchical effects and frames of reference.

Five experiments were conducted in order to determine which of two hypotheses, initially proposed by Rock (1990), accounts for interactions between oriented elements in a visual scene. We also explored the suggestion that two hypothetical processes--namely, frame of reference and hierarchical organization--describe phenomena arising from distinct mechanisms (Spinelli, Antonucci, Daini, Martelli, & Zoccolotti, 1999). Double inducing stimulus versions of one-dimensional and two-dimensional tilt illusions, the rod-and-frame illusion, and combinations of these were used.