Perceptual and neural consequences of rapid motion adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nervous systems adapt to the prevailing sensory environment, and the consequences of this adaptation can be observed in the responses of single neurons and in perception. Given the variety of timescales underlying events in the natural world, determining the temporal characteristics of adaptation is important to understanding how perception adjusts to its sensory environment. Previous work has shown that neural adaptation can occur on a timescale of milliseconds, but perceptual adaptation has generally been studied over relatively long timescales, typically on the order of seconds. This disparity raises important questions. Can perceptual adaptation be observed at brief, functionally relevant timescales? And if so, how do its properties relate to the rapid adaptation seen in cortical neurons? We address these questions in the context of visual motion processing, a perceptual modality characterized by rapid temporal dynamics. We demonstrate objectively that 25 ms of motion adaptation is sufficient to generate a motion aftereffect, an illusory sensation of movement experienced when a moving stimulus is replaced by a stationary pattern. This rapid adaptation occurs regardless of whether the adapting motion is perceived. In neurophysiological recordings from the middle temporal area of primate visual cortex, we find that brief motion adaptation evokes direction-selective responses to subsequently presented stationary stimuli. A simple model shows that these neural responses can explain the consequences of rapid perceptual adaptation. Overall, we show that the motion aftereffect is not merely an intriguing perceptual illusion, but rather a reflection of rapid neural and perceptual processes that can occur essentially every time we experience motion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".