4.2 Article

Circular vection during voluntary suppression of optokinetic reflex

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 144, Issue 4, Pages 554-557

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-002-1104-y

Keywords

circular vection; suppression of optokinetic reflex; Aubert-Fleischl paradox; Duncker illusion; human

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optokinetic circular vection (CV) was investigated in 12 subjects using an optokinetic pattern rotating at 15degrees/s, 30degrees/s, or 60degrees/s, and four viewing conditions: FOL, subjects attentively followed details of pattern; STA, subjects stared at the pattern; SUP, subjects suppressed their optokinetic reflex (OKR) voluntarily (this was facilitated by a white, featureless band at eye level which separated the pattern in an upper and lower half); FIX, subjects suppressed OKR by fixating at a stationary fixation point (FP). To quantify CV, subjects pressed a signal button each time they felt rotated by a further 90degrees; OKR was recorded by electro-oculography. Voluntary suppression of OKR was achieved during 2-70% of stimulus duration. Total apparent self-displacement (cumulated 90degrees indications) was smallest during FOL, increasing gradually in the order FOL < STA < SUP < FIX (all inequalities significant); CV latency decreased in the same order. Slow eye velocity was identical during FOL and STA, and was reduced by 70-30% during SUP. We conclude from these results: (1) the effect of eye movements on CV depends on whether these are intentional (FOL) or not (STA); (2) the increase in CV during voluntary OKR suppression without FP suggests that afferent motion cues (retinal slip) are processed with larger gain than efferent motion cues (eye movement); hence (3) the enhancement of CV during fixation of FP is not, or not solely, the result of the apparent motion of the FP counter to the direction of pattern movement (Duncker illusion).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available