Derek Henry Arnold

The physiological blind spot corresponds to the optic disc where the retina contains no light-detecting photoreceptor cells. Our perception seemingly fills in this gap in input. Here we suggest that rather than an active process, such perceptual filling-in could instead be a consequence of the integration of visual inputs at higher stages of processing discounting the local absence of retinal input. Using functional brain imaging, we resolved the retinotopic representation of the physiological blind spot in early human visual cortex and measured responses while participants perceived filling-in. Responses in early visual areas simply reflected the absence of visual input. In contrast, higher extrastriate regions responded more to stimuli in the eye containing the blind spot than the fellow eye. However, this signature was independent of filling-in. We argue that these findings agree with philosophical accounts that posit that the concept of filling-in of absent retinal input is unnecessary.

In timing perception studies, the timing of one event is usually manipulated relative to another, and participants are asked to judge if the two events were synchronous, or to judge which of the two events occurred first. Responses are analyzed to determine a measure of central tendency, which is taken as an estimate of the timing at which the two events are perceptually synchronous. When these estimates do not coincide with physical synchrony, it is often assumed that the sensory signals are asynchronous, as though the transfer of information concerning one input has been accelerated or decelerated relative to the other. Here we show that, while this is a viable interpretation, it is equally plausible that such effects are driven by shifts in the criteria used to differentiate simultaneous from asynchronous inputs. Our analyses expose important ambiguities concerning the interpretation of simultaneity judgement data, which have hitherto been underappreciated

Background Motion-defined form can seem to persist briefly after motion ceases, before seeming to gradually disappear into the background. Here we investigate if this subjective persistence reflects a signal capable of improving objective measures of sensitivity to static form. Methodology/Principal Findings We presented a sinusoidal modulation of luminance, masked by a background noise pattern. The sinusoidal luminance modulation was usually subjectively invisible when static, but visible when moving. We found that drifting then stopping the waveform resulted in a transient subjective persistence of the waveform in the static display. Observers' objective sensitivity to the position of the static waveform was also improved after viewing moving waveforms, compared to viewing static waveforms for a matched duration. This facilitation did not occur simply because movement provided more perspectives of the waveform, since performance following pre-exposure to scrambled animations did not match that following pre-exposure to smooth motion. Observers did not simply remember waveform positions at motion offset, since removing the waveform before testing reduced performance. Conclusions/Significance Motion processing therefore interacts with subsequent static visual inputs in a way that can improve performance in objective sensitivity measures. We suggest that the brief subjective persistence of motion-defined forms that can occur after motion offsets is a consequence of the decay of a static form signal that has been transiently enhanced by motion processing.