Motion adaptation and attention: A critical review and meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.10.010Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Identified 29 studies of the effect of attention on motion adaptation (k = 76, N = 229).

  • Meta analysis reveals that attention has a substantial effect on motion adaptation.

  • Larger effect when adapting to translating than complex motion (rotation/expansion).

  • Effect modulated by various adaptation and test stimuli characteristics.

  • Response bias cannot account for the attention effect.

Abstract

The motion aftereffect (MAE) provides a behavioural probe into the mechanisms underlying motion perception, and has been used to study the effects of attention on motion processing. Visual attention can enhance detection and discrimination of selected visual signals. However, the relationship between attention and motion processing remains contentious: not all studies find that attention increases MAEs. Our meta-analysis reveals several factors that explain superficially discrepant findings.

Across studies (37 independent samples, 76 effects) motion adaptation was significantly and substantially enhanced by attention (Cohen’s d = 1.12, p < .0001). The effect more than doubled when adapting to translating (vs. expanding or rotating) motion. Other factors affecting the attention-MAE relationship included stimulus size, eccentricity and speed. By considering these behavioural analyses alongside neurophysiological work, we conclude that feature-based (rather than spatial, or object-based) attention is the biggest driver of sensory adaptation.

Comparisons between naïve and non-naïve observers, different response paradigms, and assessment of ‘file-drawer effects’ indicate that neither response bias nor publication bias are likely to have significantly inflated the estimated effect of attention.

Section snippets

Background

Attention refers to our ability to selectively process certain aspects of a visual scene, such that particular regions or features are enhanced, and irrelevant stimuli are inhibited (Carrasco, 2011). The effects of attention on perceptual processes are usually measured via manipulations of covert attention in which attention is directed independently of eye movements. This contrasts with overt attention, in which a redirection of attention is accompanied by an eye movement to fixate the

Inclusion criteria

All studies that met the following criteria were included in the present meta-analysis:

  • 1

    The study manipulated attention during motion adaptation and reported the subsequent behavioural motion aftereffect.

  • 2

    The stimuli did not differ across attentional manipulations.

  • 3

    The study was published in an English language journal on or before August 2016.

  • 4

    Participants were healthy human adults – studies using patient populations were excluded.

  • 5

    The study was not a re-analysis of existing data

  • 6

    Sufficient

Summary of included data

In total, 29 studies were analysed, involving 229 participants across 37 independent samples, yielding 76 effect size estimates. These effect size estimates, and the studies from which they originated are provided in Table 1. Detailed information about each effect is available in the Supplementary Material S1. Two effect sizes were more than ± 3 SDs from the mean. However, removing these outliers reduced the overall effect size by only 0.04 and all significant moderators remained significant.

Summary of findings

Attending to a moving stimulus significantly increases the resultant MAE. This effect of attention is modulated by various characteristics of the adaptation and test stimuli: larger attentional effects were found following adaptation to stimuli that were (i) translating (vs. those with complex motion trajectories) (ii) at a greater eccentricity and (iii) smaller in size. In addition, when considering multiple moderators simultaneously, stronger attentional modulation was reported in studies

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis supports a number of conclusions. First, there is overwhelming evidence that motion adaptation is affected by attention. By analysing the effects of different paradigms, participant naivety and looking for evidence of the ‘file drawer’ effect, we can be confident that reported effects are not driven by response bias or publication bias. It seems that Wohlgemuth (1911) was wrong after all. More importantly, we identified several factors that modulate the effects of attention on

References (91)

  • A. Kohler et al.

    Deciding what to see: the role of intention and attention in the perception of apparent motion

    Vis. Res.

    (2008)
  • A. Kohn et al.

    Neuronal adaptation to visual motion in area MT of the macaque

    Neuron

    (2003)
  • M.J.M. Lankheet et al.

    Attentional modulation of adaptation to two-component transparent motion

    Vis. Res.

    (1995)
  • N. Lavie

    Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load

    Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.)

    (2005)
  • Z.L. Lu et al.

    The functional architecture of human visual motion perception

    Vis. Res.

    (1995)
  • G. Mather et al.

    The motion aftereffect reloaded

    Trends Cogn. Sci. (Regul. Ed.)

    (2008)
  • J.H.R. Maunsell et al.

    Feature-based attention in visual cortex

    Trends Neurosci.

    (2006)
  • M.J. Morgan

    Motion adaptation does not depend on attention to the adaptor

    Vision Res.

    (2012)
  • M.J. Morgan

    Wohlgemuth was right: distracting attention from the adapting stimulus does not decrease the motion after-effect

    Vis. Res.

    (2011)
  • I. Mukai et al.

    Differential effect of attention to translation and expansion on motion aftereffects (MAE)

    Vis. Res.

    (2001)
  • K. Nakayama

    Biological image motion processing: a review

    Vis. Res.

    (1985)
  • S. Nishida et al.

    A hierarchical structure of motion system revealed by interocular transfer of flicker motion aftereffects

    Vis. Res.

    (2000)
  • S. Nishida et al.

    Complete interocular transfer of motion aftereffect with flickering test

    Vis. Res.

    (1994)
  • S. Nishida et al.

    Motion aftereffect with flickering test patterns reveals higher stages of motion processing

    Vis. Res.

    (1995)
  • K.M. O’Craven et al.

    Voluntary attention modulates fMRI activity in human MT-MST

    Neuron

    (1997)
  • R. Patterson et al.

    Selective attention and cyclopean motion processing

    Vis. Res.

    (2005)
  • G. Rees et al.

    Processing of irrelevant visual motion during performance of an auditory attention task

    Neuropsychologia

    (2001)
  • A. Rezec et al.

    Attention enhances adaptability: evidence from motion adaptation experiments

    Vis. Res.

    (2004)
  • F.A.J. Verstraten et al.

    Recovery from adaptation for dynamic and static motion aftereffects: evidence for two mechanisms

    Vision Res.

    (1996)
  • A. Wannig et al.

    Attention to surfaces modulates motion processing in extrastriate area MT

    Neuron

    (2007)
  • R. Addams

    An account of a peculiar optical phenomenon seen after having looked at a moving body

    London Edinburgh Philos. Mag. J. Sci.

    (1834)
  • D. Alais et al.

    Neural strength of visual attention gauged by motion adaptation

    Nat. Neurosci.

    (1999)
  • Arizona Software Inc

    GraphClick 3.0.2

    (2010)
  • L. Bartlett et al.

    The effects of attention and adaptation duration on the motion aftereffect

    J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform.

    (2018)
  • M.S. Beauchamp et al.

    Graded effects of spatial and featural attention on human area MT and associated motion processing areas

    J. Neurophysiol.

    (1997)
  • R. Blake et al.

    Adaptation to invisible gratings and the site of binocular rivalry suppression

    Nature

    (1974)
  • R. Blake et al.

    Strength of early visual adaptation depends on visual awareness

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2006)
  • C. Büchel et al.

    The functional anatomy of attention to visual motion. A functional MRI study

    Brain

    (1998)
  • A. Chaudhuri

    Modulation of the motion aftereffect by selective attention

    Nature

    (1990)
  • M.W.-L. Cheung

    Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach

    Psychol. Methods

    (2014)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences

    (1977)
  • G. Cumming

    Understanding the New Statistics

    (2012)
  • J. Driver et al.

    Motion coherence and conjunction search: implications for guided search theory

    Percept. Psychophys.

    (1992)
  • S. Duval et al.

    A nonparametric “Trim and Fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis

    J. Am. Stat. Assoc.

    (2000)
  • S. Duval et al.

    Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis

    Biometrics

    (2000)
  • This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

    1

    Present address: School of Psychology & Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, RG6 6AL, England, UK.

    View full text