Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Relation of split apparent motion to metacontrast

A E Stoper, S Banffy

    Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance
    |May 1, 1977
    PubMed
    Summary

    Metacontrast suppression and split apparent motion are linked but distinct visual phenomena. Research suggests their underlying mechanisms are largely independent, challenging the necessity of apparent motion for metacontrast.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Effects of gravitational and optical stimulation on the perception of target elevation.

    Perception & psychophysics·2001
    Same author

    Effect of structured visual environments on apparent eye level.

    Perception & psychophysics·1989
    Same author

    Judgments of eye level in light and in darkness.

    Perception & psychophysics·1986
    Same author

    Metacontrast and paracontrast suppression of a contourless area.

    Vision research·1978

    Area of Science:

    • Visual Perception
    • Psychophysics
    • Cognitive Neuroscience

    Background:

    • Metacontrast, a form of visual masking, often co-occurs with split apparent motion.
    • The relationship between these two phenomena and their underlying neural mechanisms remains incompletely understood.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To investigate the relationship between metacontrast and split apparent motion.
    • To determine if apparent motion is a necessary component of metacontrast.
    • To explore the independence of the mechanisms driving these visual effects.

    Main Methods:

    • Experiments involved presenting target and mask stimuli, with and without "neighboring stimuli," to subjects.
    • Participants rated the intensity of both metacontrast and split apparent motion.
    • Variations included peripheral presentation and close spacing of stimuli.

    Main Results:

    • In some conditions, neighboring stimuli eliminated both metacontrast and split motion, suggesting a link.
    • However, neighboring stimuli differentially affected metacontrast and split motion, sometimes enhancing the latter, indicating independent mechanisms.
    • Peripheral presentation and close spacing produced metacontrast without split motion, definitively decoupling the two phenomena.

    Conclusions:

    • Apparent motion is not necessary for metacontrast.
    • Metacontrast likely involves a "fusion" process, while apparent motion relies on a "direction-sensitive unit."
    • Interactions between these independent processes may explain their frequent co-occurrence.

    Related Experiment Videos