title: The reduction of the effect of the Müller-Lyer illusion saccade amplitude by classic adaptation.
abstract: The effect of Müller-Lyer stimuli on saccade amplitude varies across studies. One methodological difference between studies is stimulus display time; studies with long stimulus display times tend to report smaller effects than studies with short display times. Is it possible that long display times might provide conditions in which saccade adaption takes place? Five adult subjects were exposed to runs of the same illusion-inducing Müller-Lyer stimulus, presented for 1 s, interspersed with probe trials in which a point target was presented for 200 ms. While saccade amplitude was consistently larger with 'in-configurations' than with 'out-configurations' at the beginning of runs, amplitude declined over runs with the in-configuration. On average, it was constant in out-configuration runs. The net effect was a decline in the apparent effect size (in-amp - out-amp / out-amp) of the Müller-Lyer stimulus. Probe trial saccade amplitude increased in 'out' runs and decreased in 'in' runs. These effects were not present in control experiments, in which stimulus display time was 200 ms. One explanation for this pattern of results is that long stimulus presentation times allow for the generation of retinal error signals. This in turn leads to saccade adaptation, causing an underestimation of the effect of this type of stimulus on saccade amplitude.
authors: Directorate of Orthoptics and Vision Science, University of Liverpool, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK; e-mail:  pcknox@liv.ac.uk.
authors: Paul C
authors: PC
authors: Knox
keywords: Müller-Lyer illusion; adaptation; saccades
references: Hum Neurobiol. 1986;5(4):245-53
references: 3818374
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1981 Apr;7(2):356-66
references: 6453929
references: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Oct;12(2):301-5
references: 11587898
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Sep 1;5(9):379-382
references: 11520701
references: Exp Brain Res. 2007 Aug;181(2):277-87
references: 17372725
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Oct;15(5):1008-14
references: 18926997
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Jan;7(1):10-11
references: 12517352
references: Exp Brain Res. 2005 Apr;162(2):133-44
references: 15791463
references: J Vis. 2006 Jun 29;6(7):727-38
references: 16895455
references: J Neurophysiol. 2010 Jun;103(6):3302-10
references: 20393067
references: Prog Brain Res. 2002;140:89-96
references: 12508584
references: J Neurophysiol. 1998 Nov;80(5):2405-16
references: 9819252
references: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Oct;175(1):177-82
references: 16733700
references: Acta Psychol (Amst). 1981 Aug;48(1-3):123-31
references: 7304220
references: Prog Neurobiol. 2004 Jan;72(1):27-53
references: 15019175
references: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1989 May;15(2):249-58
references: 2525598
references: Vision Res. 2004 Mar;44(6):603-11
references: 14693187
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Mar 1;5(3):109-113
references: 11239810
references: J Vis. 2010 Jan 21;10(1):11.1-13
references: 20143904
references: J Vis. 2003 Dec 04;3(11):751-60
references: 14765958
references: Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Nov 1;5(11):457-459
references: 11684465