Trends in Cognitive Sciences
ReviewThe motion aftereffect reloaded
Introduction
After prolonged adaptation to a visual scene moving in a certain direction, observation of a stationary scene evokes an experience of motion in the opposite direction. This ancient perceptual effect, called the motion aftereffect (MAE) 1, 2, is easy to generate and very robust. Research on the MAE has had a crucial role in the development of theories relating motion perception to neural activity in the brain. Sutherland [3] was the first to suggest a simple neural explanation of the MAE, inspired by Hubel and Wiesel’s [4] discovery of direction-selective cortical cells in the cat:
‘…the direction in which something is seen to move might depend on the ratios of firing in cells sensitive to movement in different directions, and after prolonged movement in one direction a stationary image would produce less firing in the cells which had just been stimulated than normally, hence movement in the opposite direction would be seen to occur’ (p.227 in Ref. [3]).
In 1963, Barlow and Hill [5] reported adaptation-induced changes in responsiveness in single cells in the rabbit retina, and Sutherland’s [3] ratio account of the effect gained wide acceptance. Later discoveries of adaptation effects in cat and primate cortex encouraged the general view that the origin of the MAE was probably adaptation in motion-selective cells in primary visual cortex. The essential principle of population coding in the MAE is still universally accepted, but discoveries made possible with the introduction of new experimental techniques indicate that important changes to theoretical explanations of the MAE are required. These discoveries include work in human psychophysics 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, primate physiology 25, 26, 27, 28, human neuroimaging 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, human electrophysiology (Visual Evoked Potentials [VEPs]), magnetoencephalography (MEG) 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and transcranial stimulation 45, 46. Results indicate that the MAE is an amalgam of neural adaptation at several visual cortical sites. This short review offers a fresh appraisal of the MAE and its neural basis, based on this recent research.
Section snippets
Psychophysical evidence: how many aftereffects?
The classical MAE seen in natural viewing conditions involves a static test pattern; after one observes movement for a while, such as a waterfall or the view from a moving vehicle, subsequently viewed stationary objects seem to move. We shall refer to this effect as the static MAE or SMAE. In the late twentieth century, laboratory researchers began using dynamic test patterns such as dynamic visual noise or counter-phase flicker to study the aftereffects of motion adaptation. A dynamic visual
Single-unit recordings
Important recent studies by Kohn and Movshon 25, 26 measured adaptation-induced changes in the response of direction-selective cells in macaque MT (previously reported in Refs 27, 28). One of their aims was to determine whether adaptation effects occur at the level of MT, or are inherited in responses fed forward from V1 cells. In the latter case, the spatial extent of adaptation in MT should be limited by the smaller size of receptive fields in V1. Kohn and Movshon [25] did indeed find
Human brain imaging
Results from recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of human motion processing support a functional distinction between at least two populations of motion sensors, responsive respectively to first- and second-order motion, but these populations do not seem to occupy anatomically segregated locations. Ashida et al. [29], for instance, employed a fMRI adaptation paradigm: when repeated presentation of similar stimuli reduced the blood oxygen level dependent (BOLD) response,
Human transcranial stimulation studies
Stewart and colleagues [43] were the first to succeed in reducing the duration of SMAE (but not of the colour aftereffect) with magnetic stimulation over MT, indicating a role for MT in the SMAE. Théoret et al. [46] applied repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over MT during a storage period in between MAE adaptation and testing. Stimulation shortened the duration of the subsequent MAE, compared to a control condition without rTMS. There was little effect of stimulation to V1 on
VEPs and MEG
Which components of the VEP reflect activity related specifically to the MAE? Human electrophysiological studies have shown that the amplitude of a negativity peak at ∼200 ms (N2) is affected by motion adaptation [40], but it is not clear whether this effect is direction selective. More recently, Kobayashi et al. [41] found a significant bilateral increase of a positive component at ∼160 ms (P160) in the occipitotemporal region after motion adaptation. They also observed a laterally biased effect
Conclusions
Figure 4 is a simple functional diagram that attempts to summarize the main stages of visual motion processing from the perspective of the motion aftereffect research reviewed here. Motion sensors in the earliest cortical areas (V1, V2 and V3) feed into a computation underlying the perception of ‘static’ and also into a local motion integration stage. First-order motion sensors tuned to slow velocities contribute to ‘static’ computations, whereas first-order sensors tuned to higher velocities
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (WT082816MA) and the CARIPARO foundation (2005).
References (55)
The motion aftereffect: a review
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(1998)The motion aftereffect of transparent motion: two temporal channels account for perceived direction
Vision Res.
(2005)Enhanced motion aftereffect for complex motions
Vision Res.
(1999)Temporal and spatial frequency tuning of the flicker motion aftereffect
Vision Res.
(1996)Independent aftereffects of attention and motion
Neuron
(2000)Predicting the motion after-effect from sensitivity loss
Vision Res.
(2006)- et al.
A hierarchical structure of motion system revealed by interocular transfer of flicker motion aftereffects
Vision Res.
(2000) Complete interocular transfer of motion aftereffect with flickering test
Vision Res.
(1994)- et al.
Motion aftereffect with flickering test patterns reveals higher stages of motion processing
Vision Res.
(1995) Adaptation to second-order motion results in a motion afterefffect for directionally-ambiguous test stimuli
Vision Res.
(1994)
Global motion adaptation
Vision Res.
Influence of viewing distance on aftereffects of moving random pixel arrays
Vision Res.
Storage for free: a surprising property of a simple gain-control model of motion aftereffects
Vision Res.
Directional motion sensitivity under transparent motion conditions
Vision Res.
Recovery from adaptation for dynamic and static motion aftereffects: evidence for two mechanisms
Vision Res.
Integration after adaptation to transparent motion: static and dynamic test patterns result in different aftereffect directions
Vision Res.
Neuronal adaptation to visual motion in area MT of the macaque
Neuron
Direction-specific adaptation in area MT of the owl monkey
Brain Res.
The motion aftereffect: more than area V5/MT? Evidence from 15O-butanol PET studies.
Brain Res.
Close correlation between activity in brain area MT/V5 and the perception of a visual motion aftereffect
Curr. Biol.
Neuronal basis of the motion aftereffect reconsidered
Neuron
The network of brain areas involved in the motion aftereffect
Neuroimage
Motion adaptation governs the shape of motion-evoked cortical potentials
Vision Res.
Topography of evoked potentials associated with illusory motion perception as a motion aftereffect
Brain Res. Cogn. Brain Res.
Gamma oscillations underlying the visual motion aftereffect
Neuroimage
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of human area MT/V5 disrupts perception and storage of the motion aftereffect
Neuropsychologia
Tuning properties of radial phantom motion aftereffects
Vision Res.
Cited by (123)
Autokinesis Reveals a Threshold for Perception of Visual Motion
2024, NeuroscienceMotion aftereffects in vision, audition, and touch, and their crossmodal interactions
2023, NeuropsychologiaNaturalistic stimuli in touch research
2022, Current Opinion in NeurobiologyFlexible categorization in the mouse olfactory bulb
2021, Current Biology