The predominant view of motion and form processing in the human visual system assumes that these two attributes are handled by separate and independent modules. Motion processing involves filtering by direction-selective sensors, followed by integration to solve the aperture problem. Form processing involves filtering by orientation-selective and size-selective receptive fields, followed by integration to encode object shape. It has long been known that motion signals can influence form processing in the well-known Gestalt principle of common fate; texture elements which share a common motion property are grouped into a single contour or texture region. However, recent research in psychophysics and neuroscience indicates that the influence of form signals on motion processing is more extensive than previously thought. First, the salience and apparent direction of moving lines depends on how the local orientation and direction of motion combine to match the receptive field properties of motion-selective neurons. Second, orientation signals generated by “motion-streaks” influence motion processing; motion sensitivity, apparent direction and adaptation are affected by simultaneously present orientation signals. Third, form signals generated by human body shape influence biological motion processing, as revealed by studies using point-light motion stimuli. Thus, form-motion integration seems to occur at several different levels of cortical processing, from V1 to STS.

The brain can retain speed information in early visual short-term memory in an astonishingly precise manner. We investigated whether this (early) visual memory system is active during the extrapolation of occluded motion and whether it reflects speed misperception due to contrast and size. Experiments 1A and 2A showed that reducing target contrast or increasing its size led to an illusory speed underestimation. Experiments 1B, 2B, and 3 showed that this illusory phenomenon is reflected in the memory of speed during occluded motion, independent of the range of visible speeds, of the length of the visible trajectory or the invisible trajectory, and of the type of task. These results suggest that illusory speed is retained in memory during invisible motion.

Fast adaptation biases the perceived motion direction of a subsequently presented ambiguous test pattern (R. Kanai & F. A. Verstraten, 2005). Depending on both the duration of the adapting stimulus (ranging from tens to hundreds of milliseconds) and the duration of the adaptation-test blank interval, the perceived direction of an ambiguous test pattern can be biased towards the same or the opposite direction of the adaptation pattern, resulting in rapid forms of motion priming or motion aftereffect respectively. These findings were obtained employing drifting luminance gratings. Many studies have shown that first-order motion (luminance-defined) and second-order motion (contrast-defined) stimuli are processed by separate mechanisms. We assessed whether these effects also exist within the second-order motion domain. Results show that fast adaptation to second-order motion biases the perceived direction of a subsequently presented second-order ambiguous test pattern with similar time courses to that obtained for first-order motion. To assess whether a single mechanism could account for these results, we ran a cross-order adaptation condition. Results showed little or no transfer between the two motion cues and probes, suggesting a degree of separation between the neural substrates subserving fast adaptation of first- and second-order motion.

Purpose: In this study we investigated in observers with low myopia: (i) the pattern of lateral interactions between stimuli activating early cortical analyzers and its modulation by perceptual learning (PL), and (ii) whether PL transferred to untrained stimuli and tasks and whether it exhibits interocular transfer. Method: Participants (seven adults with low myopia) performed 12 training sessions. Participants were trained on a contrast detection task of a central Gabor target flanked by two co-oriented and co-aligned high contrast Gabor patches. Target-to-flankers separation along the vertical axis was varied from 2 wavelengths (λ) to 8λ. Results: The results showed that before PL facilitatory lateral interactions in the myopic eye were reduced in strength, but PL increased contrast sensitivity and improved facilitatory lateral interactions. However, PL did not transfer to different local/global orientations and lower spatial frequencies. On the other hand, PL resulted in an enhancement of the contrast sensitivity function (CSF) and of the uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) both in the trained and untrained eye. Conclusions: Such improvements seem to be associated to a modulation of lateral interactions between target and flankers and it is likely to take place at a level in which the inputs from the two eyes converge.