Search

We wished to examine the spatial (gain) and temporal (rise time) properties of human optokinetic nystagmus (OKN) as a function of stimulus velocity and field location. Stimuli were either M-scaled random dots or vertical stripes that moved at velocities between 20–80 deg s−1. Three field conditions were examined: full field; a 20 deg central field; and a 12.5 deg central-field mask. OKN gain was found to be significantly affected by stimulus velocity and stimulus location, with the higher stimulus velocities and the 12.5 deg central-field mask giving lower gains. Steady-state gains for all three field conditions were not found to be affected by prior adaptation to stationary or moving stimuli. The 63% rise time was found to be significantly affected by the stimulus velocity, whereas this was not the case for the 90% rise time. Neither rise time was found to be significantly affected by the field location. These results indicate that, although the effectiveness (gain) of peripheral retina is lower than that of the central retina during optokinetic stimulation, the peripheral retina has access to common mechanisms responsible for the fast component of OKN.

It has often been reported that, in the absence of information about the direction of illumination, people interpret surface convexities and concavities in accordance with the assumption that illumination comes from above. However, ‘above’ could mean with reference to gravity, the head or the retina. Yonas et al reported that four-year-old infants use the head more than gravity as the frame of reference in interpreting surface relief but that seven-year-olds make about equal use of the two frames of reference. The potency of these two frames of reference when acting separately and when pitted against each other was measured on adult subjects. For all subjects the ‘assumption’ about the direction of illumination was predominantly with respect to the head. The gravitational frame was used only when the headcentric frame was irrevelant, and then not consistently.

It has previously been shown that when a moving and a stationary display are superimposed, illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is induced only when the moving display appears as the background. Three experiments are reported on the extent to which illusory forward self-motion (forward vection) induced by a looming display is inhibited by a superimposed stationary display as a function of the size and location of the stationary display and of the depth between the stationary and looming displays. Results showed that forward vection was controlled by the display that was perceived as the background, and background stationary displays suppressed forward vection by about the same amount whatever their size and eccentricity. Also, the perception of foreground — background properties of competing displays determined which controlled forward vection, and this control was not tied to specific depth cues. The inhibitory effect of a stationary background on forward vection was, however, weaker than that found with circular vection. This difference makes sense because, for forward body motion, the image of a distant scene is virtually stationary whereas, when the body rotates, it is not.

It has previously been reported that illusory self-rotation (circular vection) is most effectively induced by the more distant of two moving displays. Experiments are reported in which the relative effectiveness of two superimposed displays in generating circular vection as a function of (i) the separation in depth between them, (ii) their perceived relative distances, and (iii) which display was in the plane of focus was investigated. Circular vection was governed by the motion of the display that was perceived to be the more distant, even when it was actually nearer. However, actual or perceived distance was found to be not the crucial factor in circular vection because even when the distance between the two displays was virtually zero, vection was controlled by the display perceived to be in the background. When the displays were well separated in depth, vection was not affected by whether the near or the far display was in the plane of focus, nor by which display was fixed or pursued by the eyes.

Random-dot techniques were used to examine the interactions between the depth cues of dynamic occlusion and motion parallax in the perception of three-dimensional (3-D) structures, in two different situations: (a) when an observer moved laterally with respect to a rigid 3-D structure, and (b) when surfaces at different distances moved with respect to a stationary observer. In condition (a), the extent of accretion/deletion (dynamic occlusion) and the amount of relative motion (motion parallax) were both linked to the motion of the observer. When the two cues specified opposite, and therefore contradictory, depth orders, the perceived order in depth of the simulated surfaces was dependent on the magnitude of the depth separation. For small depth separations, motion parallax determined the perceived order, whereas for large separations it was determined by dynamic occlusion. In condition (b), where the motion parallax cues for depth order were inherently ambiguous, depth order was determined principally by the unambiguous occlusion information.