Search

Although the retinal position of objects changes with each saccadic eye movement, we perceive the visual world to be stable. How this visual stability or constancy arises is debated. Cancellation accounts propose that the retinal consequences of eye movements are compensated for by an equal-but-opposite eye movement signal. Assumption accounts propose that saccade-induced retinal displacements are ignored because we have a prior belief in a stable world. Saccadic suppression of displacement-the fact that small displacements of the visual targets during saccades go unnoticed-argues in favor of assumption accounts. Extinguishing the target before the displacement unmasks it, arguing in favor of cancellation accounts. We show that an irrelevant displacement of the target orthogonal to saccade direction unmasks displacements parallel to saccade direction, and therefore relieves saccadic suppression of displacement. This result suggests that visual stability arises from the interplay between cancellation and assumption mechanisms: When the post-saccadic target position falls within an elliptic region roughly equivalent to habitual saccadic variability, displacements are not seen and stability is assumed. When the displacements fall outside this region, as with our orthogonal steps, displacements are seen and positions are remapped.

Perceiving three-dimensional object motion while moving through the world is hard: not only must optic flow be segmented and parallax resolved into shape and motion, but also observer motion needs to be taken into account in order to perceive absolute, rather than observer-relative motion. In order to simplify the last step, it has recently been suggested that if the visual background is stationary, then foreground object motion, computed relative to the background, directly yields absolute motion. A series of studies with immobile observers and optic flow simulating observer movement have provided evidence that observers actually utilize this so-called "flow parsing" strategy (Rushton & Warren, 2005). We test this hypothesis by using mobile observers (as well as immobile ones) who judge the motion in depth of a foreground object in the presence of a stationary or moving background. We find that background movement does influence motion perception but not as much as predicted by the flow-parsing hypothesis. Thus, we find evidence that, in order to perceive absolute motion, observers partly use flow-parsing but also compensate egocentric motion by a global self-motion estimate.

Different attention and saccade control areas contribute to space constancy by remapping target activity onto their expected post-saccadic locations. To visualize this dynamic remapping, we used a technique developed by Honda (2006) where a probe moved vertically while participants made a saccade across the motion path. Observers do not report any large excursions of the trace at the time of the saccade that would correspond to the classical peri-saccadic mislocalization effect. Instead, they reported that the motion trace appeared to be broken into two separate segments with a shift of approximately one-fifth of the saccade amplitude representing an overcompensation of the expected retinal displacement caused by the saccade. To measure the timing of this break in the trace, we introduced a second, physical shift that was the same size but opposite in direction to the saccade-induced shift. The trace appeared continuous most frequently when the physical shift was introduced at the midpoint of the saccade, suggesting that the compensation is in place when the saccade lands. Moreover, this simple linear shift made the combined traces appear continuous and linear, with no curvature. In contrast, Honda (2006) had reported that the pre- and post-saccadic portion of the trace appeared aligned and that there was often a small, visible excursion of the trace at the time of the saccade. To compare our results more directly, we increased the contrast of our moving probe in a third experiment. Now some observers reported seeing a deviation in the motion path but the misalignment remained present. We conclude that the large deviations at the time of saccade are generally masked for a continuously moving target but that there is nevertheless a residual misalignment between pre- and post-saccadic coordinates of approximately 20% of the saccade amplitude that normally goes unnoticed.

Perceptual aftereffects provide a sensitive tool to investigate the influence of eye and head position on visual processing. There have been recent indications that the TAE is remapped around the time of a saccade to remain aligned to the adapting location in the world. Here, we investigate the spatial frame of reference of the TAE by independently manipulating retinal position, gaze orientation, and head orientation between adaptation and test. The results show that the critical factor in the TAE is the correspondence between the adaptation and test locations in a retinotopic frame of reference, whereas world- and head-centric frames of reference do not play a significant role. Our results confirm that adaptation to orientation takes place at retinotopic levels of visual processing. We suggest that the remapping process that plays a role in visual stability does not transfer feature gain information around the time of eye (or head) movements.

To perceive object motion when the eyes themselves undergo smooth movement, we can either perceive motion directly-by extracting motion relative to a background presumed to be fixed-or through compensation, by correcting retinal motion by information about eye movement. To isolate compensation, we created stimuli in which, while the eye undergoes smooth movement due to inertia, only one object is visible-and the motion of this stimulus is decoupled from that of the eye. Using a wide variety of stimulus speeds and directions, we rule out a linear model of compensation, in which stimulus velocity is estimated as a linear combination of retinal and eye velocities multiplied by a constant gain. In fact, we find that when the stimulus moves in the same direction as the eyes, there is little compensation, but when movement is in the opposite direction, compensation grows in a nonlinear way with speed. We conclude that eye movement is estimated from a combination of extraretinal and retinal signals, the latter based on an assumption of stimulus stationarity. Two simple models, in which the direction of eye movement is computed from the extraretinal signal and the speed from the retinal signal, account well for our results.