The Reduction of the Effect of the Müller-Lyer Illusion Saccade Amplitude by Classic Adaptation

Overview

Journal Iperception

Date 2013 Feb 12

PMID 23396270

Authors

Paul C Knox

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The effect of Müller-Lyer stimuli on saccade amplitude varies across studies. One methodological difference between studies is stimulus display time; studies with long stimulus display times tend to report smaller effects than studies with short display times. Is it possible that long display times might provide conditions in which saccade adaption takes place? Five adult subjects were exposed to runs of the same illusion-inducing Müller-Lyer stimulus, presented for 1 s, interspersed with probe trials in which a point target was presented for 200 ms. While saccade amplitude was consistently larger with 'in-configurations' than with 'out-configurations' at the beginning of runs, amplitude declined over runs with the in-configuration. On average, it was constant in out-configuration runs. The net effect was a decline in the apparent effect size (in-amp - out-amp / out-amp) of the Müller-Lyer stimulus. Probe trial saccade amplitude increased in 'out' runs and decreased in 'in' runs. These effects were not present in control experiments, in which stimulus display time was 200 ms. One explanation for this pattern of results is that long stimulus presentation times allow for the generation of retinal error signals. This in turn leads to saccade adaptation, causing an underestimation of the effect of this type of stimulus on saccade amplitude.

References

Deubel H, Wolf W, Hauske G . Adaptive gain control of saccadic eye movements. Hum Neurobiol. 1986; 5(4):245-53. View

Miller J, Anstis T, TEMPLETON W . Saccadic plasticity: parametric adaptive control by retinal feedback. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981; 7(2):356-66. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.7.2.356. View

Noto C, ROBINSON F . Visual error is the stimulus for saccade gain adaptation. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001; 12(2):301-5. DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(01)00062-3. View

Bruno N . When does action resist visual illusions?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001; 5(9):379-382. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01725-3. View

Knox P, Bruno N . When does action resist visual illusion? The effect of Müller-Lyer stimuli on reflexive and voluntary saccades. Exp Brain Res. 2007; 181(2):277-87. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-0927-y. View

McCarley J, Grant C . State-trace analysis of the effects of a visual illusion on saccade amplitudes and perceptual judgments. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008; 15(5):1008-14. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.1008. View

Milner D, Dyde R . Why do some perceptual illusions affect visually guided action, when others don't?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(1):10-11. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)00004-9. View

Bernardis P, Knox P, Bruno N . How does action resist visual illusion? Uncorrected oculomotor information does not account for accurate pointing in peripersonal space. Exp Brain Res. 2005; 162(2):133-44. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-004-2121-9. View

de Grave D, Franz V, Gegenfurtner K . The influence of the Brentano illusion on eye and hand movements. J Vis. 2006; 6(7):727-38. DOI: 10.1167/6.7.5. View

10.

Havermann K, Lappe M . The influence of the consistency of postsaccadic visual errors on saccadic adaptation. J Neurophysiol. 2010; 103(6):3302-10. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00970.2009. View

11.

Munoz D . Commentary: saccadic eye movements: overview of neural circuitry. Prog Brain Res. 2003; 140:89-96. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-6123(02)40044-1. View

12.

Wallman J, Fuchs A . Saccadic gain modification: visual error drives motor adaptation. J Neurophysiol. 1998; 80(5):2405-16. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1998.80.5.2405. View

13.

de Grave D, Smeets J, Brenner E . Why are saccades influenced by the Brentano illusion?. Exp Brain Res. 2006; 175(1):177-82. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0536-1. View

14.

Wong E, Mack A . Saccadic programming and perceived location. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1981; 48(1-3):123-31. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(81)90054-8. View

15.

Hopp J, Fuchs A . The characteristics and neuronal substrate of saccadic eye movement plasticity. Prog Neurobiol. 2004; 72(1):27-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2003.12.002. View

16.

Semmlow J, Gauthier G, Vercher J . Mechanisms of short-term saccadic adaptation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989; 15(2):249-58. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.15.2.249. View

17.

Dassonville P, Bridgeman B, Bala J, Thiem P, Sampanes A . The induced Roelofs effect: two visual systems or the shift of a single reference frame?. Vision Res. 2003; 44(6):603-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2003.10.017. View

18.

Carey D . Do action systems resist visual illusions?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2001; 5(3):109-113. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01592-8. View

19.

Gilster R, Kuhtz-Buschbeck J . The Müller-Lyer illusion: investigation of a center of gravity effect on the amplitudes of saccades. J Vis. 2010; 10(1):11.1-13. DOI: 10.1167/10.1.11. View

20.

McCarley J, Kramer A, DiGirolamo G . Differential effects of the Müller-Lyer illusion on reflexive and voluntary saccades. J Vis. 2004; 3(11):751-60. DOI: 10.1167/3.11.9. View