Tilt aftereffect for texture edges is larger than in matched subjective edges, but both are strong adaptors of luminance edges
Keeble, David R.T. Hawley, S.J.
Keeble, David R.T.
Hawley, S.J.
Publication Date
2006
End of Embargo
Supervisor
Rights
Peer-Reviewed
Yes
Open Access status
closedAccess
Accepted for publication
Institution
Department
Awarded
Embargo end date
Collections
Additional title
Abstract
The tilt aftereffect (TAE) has been used previously to probe whether contours defined by different attributes are subserved by the same or by different underlying mechanisms. Here, we compare two types of contours between texture surfaces, one with texture orientation contrast across the edge (orientation contrast contour; OC) and one without, commonly referred to as a subjective contour (SC). Both contour types produced curves of TAE versus adapting angle displaying typical positive and negative peaks at ~15 and 70 deg, respectively. The curves are well fit by difference of Gaussian (DoG) functions, with one Gaussian accounting for the contour adaptation effect and the other accounting for the texture orientation adaptation effect. Adaptation to OC elicited larger TAEs than did adaptation to SC, suggesting that they more effectively activate orientation-selective neurons in V1/V2 during prolonged viewing. Surprisingly, both contour types adapted a luminance contour (LC) as strongly as did an LC itself, suggesting that the second-order orientation cue contained in the texture edge activates the same set of orientation-selective neurons as does an LC. These findings have implications for the mechanisms by which the orientations of texture edges and SCs are encoded
Version
No full-text in the repository
Citation
Keeble, D.R.T. and Hawley, S.J. (2006). Tilt aftereffect for texture edges is larger than in matched subjective edges, but both are strong adaptors of luminance edges. Journal of Vision. Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 37-52.
Link to publisher’s version
Link to published version
Link to Version of Record
Type
Article