An Aftereffect of Adaptation to Mean Size

Overview

Journal Vis cogn

Specialties Neurology
Psychology

Date 2013 Dec 19

PMID 24348083

Citations 14

Authors

Jennifer E Corbett

Nicole Wurnitsch

Alex Schwartz

David Whitney

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The visual system rapidly represents the mean size of sets of objects. Here, we investigated whether mean size is explicitly encoded by the visual system, along a single dimension like texture, numerosity, and other visual dimensions susceptible to adaptation. Observers adapted to two sets of dots with different mean sizes, presented simultaneously in opposite visual fields. After adaptation, two test patches replaced the adapting dot sets, and participants judged which test appeared to have the larger average dot diameter. They generally perceived the test that replaced the smaller mean size adapting set as being larger than the test that replaced the larger adapting set. This differential aftereffect held for single test dots (Experiment 2) and high-pass filtered displays (Experiment 3), and changed systematically as a function of the variance of the adapting dot sets (Experiment 4), providing additional support that mean size is adaptable, and therefore explicitly encoded dimension of visual scenes.

Citing Articles

Contrast Adaptation in Face Perception Revealed Through EEG and Behavior.

Gwinn O, Retter T, ONeil S, Webster M Front Syst Neurosci. 2021; 15:701097.

PMID: 34776882 PMC: 8585838. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2021.701097.

Ensemble Statistics Can Be Available before Individual Item Properties: Electroencephalography Evidence Using the Oddball Paradigm.

Epstein M, Emmanouil T J Cogn Neurosci. 2021; 33(6):1056-1068.

PMID: 34428790 PMC: 8385227. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01704.

Serial dependence in time and numerosity perception is dimension-specific.

Togoli I, Fedele M, Fornaciai M, Bueti D J Vis. 2021; 21(5):6.

PMID: 33956059 PMC: 8107483. DOI: 10.1167/jov.21.5.6.

Spatially intermixed objects of different categories are parsed automatically.

Khvostov V, Lukashevich A, Utochkin I Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):377.

PMID: 33432044 PMC: 7801410. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79828-4.

Central tendency representation and exemplar matching in visual short-term memory.

Dube C Mem Cognit. 2019; 47(4):589-602.

PMID: 30830554 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-00900-0.

References

Loftus G, Masson M . Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 1(4):476-90. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210951. View

Irwin D . Information integration across saccadic eye movements. Cogn Psychol. 1991; 23(3):420-56. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90015-g. View

CAMPBELL F, Robson J . Application of Fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings. J Physiol. 1968; 197(3):551-66. PMC: 1351748. DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.1968.sp008574. View

Durgin F, Proffitt D . Visual learning in the perception of texture: simple and contingent aftereffects of texture density. Spat Vis. 1996; 9(4):423-74. DOI: 10.1163/156856896x00204. View

Solomon J, Morgan M, Chubb C . Efficiencies for the statistics of size discrimination. J Vis. 2011; 11(12):13. PMC: 4135075. DOI: 10.1167/11.12.13. View

Burr D, Ross J . A visual sense of number. Curr Biol. 2008; 18(6):425-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.02.052. View

Anstis S, Verstraten F, Mather G . The motion aftereffect. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 2(3):111-7. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(98)01142-5. View

Durgin F . Texture density adaptation and visual number revisited. Curr Biol. 2008; 18(18):R855-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.053. View

Wichmann F, Hill N . The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys. 2002; 63(8):1293-313. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194544. View

10.

Chong S, Treisman A . Representation of statistical properties. Vision Res. 2003; 43(4):393-404. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(02)00596-5. View

11.

Anstis S . Size adaptation to visual texture and print: evidence for spatial-frequency analysis. Am J Psychol. 1974; 87(1-2):261-7. View

12.

Myczek K, Simons D . Better than average: alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Percept Psychophys. 2008; 70(5):772-88. DOI: 10.3758/pp.70.5.772. View

13.

Durgin F, Huk A . Texture density aftereffects in the perception of artificial and natural textures. Vision Res. 1998; 37(23):3273-82. DOI: 10.1016/s0042-6989(97)00126-0. View

14.

Smirnakis S, Berry M, Warland D, Bialek W, Meister M . Adaptation of retinal processing to image contrast and spatial scale. Nature. 1997; 386(6620):69-73. DOI: 10.1038/386069a0. View

15.

Arnold D, Birt A, Wallis T . Perceived size and spatial coding. J Neurosci. 2008; 28(23):5954-8. PMC: 6670320. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0578-08.2008. View

16.

Potter M . Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1976; 2(5):509-22. View

17.

Im H, Chong S . Computation of mean size is based on perceived size. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009; 71(2):375-84. DOI: 10.3758/APP.71.2.375. View

18.

Ariely D . Seeing sets: representation by statistical properties. Psychol Sci. 2001; 12(2):157-62. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00327. View

19.

Simons D, Rensink R . Change blindness: past, present, and future. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 9(1):16-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006. View

20.

Chong S, Treisman A . Statistical processing: computing the average size in perceptual groups. Vision Res. 2005; 45(7):891-900. DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2004.10.004. View